Re: Action item 2003-11-03 OperationName feature

On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 12:01:42AM -0500, Mark Baker wrote:
> What I think we need is some additional styles (per the style AII),
> including;

One important thing I forgot to mention was that I believe we need a
means of specifying the "style" in the message itself, rather than just
in the WSDL.  I think that a simple extension to your proposal should

If all this is done, then my "ambiguous interface semantics" issue goes
away, as the message would be sufficiently self-descriptive for anybody
anywhere to identify the token that represents the operation ... which
also tells you how to interpret the success or failure of that message.

Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.

Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2004 07:49:51 UTC