Re: "operation name" .. an alternate proposal

At 12:31 PM 7/8/2004 -0700, Prasad Yendluri wrote:
>. . . My preference would be towards a mechanism that captures [the 
>operation name] in the message itself . . . .

I agree that this would be conceptually cleaner layering, having the 
message body include all and only the information that is semantically 
relevant to the application (since the operation name is clearly 
semantically relevant if it is used to dispatch).  However, my perception 
is that this isn't the direction the industry winds are blowing.

David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Telephone: +1.617.253.1273

Received on Thursday, 8 July 2004 16:21:37 UTC