- From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:46:01 +0100
- To: <mark.nottingham@bea.com>, <alewis@tibco.com>
- Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, <dorchard@bea.com>
> I see this as EXACTLY equivalent to putting RPC "style" information > into the interface; all we're doing here is putting Web "style" > information into the interface. so a criteria for putting information into the interface is "an abstract concept shared across multiple bindings". I think Dave's proposal satisfies that WRT being shared, but maybe the name "webMethod" is too overloaded and not abstract enough for some (Amy)? > This requirement could be satisfied by defining a few new > "RESTful" style attribute URIs; e.g., > style="http://www.w3.org/.../GET". However, that's syntactically ugly > and unnecessary, which brings us back to issue 217. i'd agree it would be ugly, but would a change in syntax from style="list of URIs" to lax extensibility be "good enough" to keep the webMethod down inside the bindings? Paul
Received on Wednesday, 30 June 2004 06:46:05 UTC