RE: FW: Action Item 2004-07-01 Solution to 168/R114

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Amelia A Lewis
> Sent: 15 July 2004 05:42
> To: paul.downey@bt.com
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: FW: Action Item 2004-07-01 Solution to 168/R114
> 
> 
<SNIP/>
> > i'm not totally against you all wanting to do such a thing, 
> just want to
> > know how far down this rabbit hole we're all headed.
> 
> I don't particularly want to do it.  I don't feel that I, as a
> representative of my company, implicitly defending the use 
> cases of our
> customers, can accept a nonsense restriction.  In the case above, for
> instance, when dispatch occurs based on artificial 
> astronomical events,
> someone creates a Stupid Feature called
> "http://wsdl.requires.this.stupid.feature/" which has this 
> documentation:
> 
> "Stupid Feature fulfills the requirement for a dispatch 
> feature.  It is
> not documented how it does so."
> 
> Whoopee.
> 
> Make it optional, and it's something that we can live with.  Make it
> required, and you just force Stupid Workarounds because it is 
> *not*, in
> fact, required by all services.

+1. I don't object to people being able to write WSDL where dispatch is
'obvious' (e.g unique GEDs ). In fact, I fully expect many WSDLs to be
written using unique GEDs. But don't FORCE me to write my WSDL a
particular way, or, as Amy points out, I'll have to invent a nonsense
feature just to satisfy a nonsense requirement.

Gudge

Received on Monday, 19 July 2004 21:43:47 UTC