- From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:14:28 -0500
- To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 08:47:35 +0600 Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> wrote: > Of course; IBM too cares that SOAP/<whatever> as well as other > bindings are indeed quite possible in WSDL for MEPs that are in-spec > as well as not in-spec. > > I'm not so sure that giving a URI and writing a few sentences achieves > that however. I would much prefer to see an example in the primer > going the whole nine yards: define a MEP, provide a binding and > discuss how it works. That seems a hell of a lot more complete and > convincing than our just taking the baby step of coming up with a URI! Certainly that's more complete and convincing. It's also unlikely to happen, because there just won't be agreement within the WG on other bindings. Is the argument, then, that if the working group can't commit to fully specifying a binding, it shouldn't provide any guidance, or even help as requested by those who are doing so? Amy! -- Amelia A. Lewis Senior Architect TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc. alewis@tibco.com
Received on Monday, 22 November 2004 16:14:52 UTC