- From: Henry Lowe <hlowe@omg.org>
- Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 13:50:09 -0500
- To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Cc: "xml-dist-app@w3.org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
I have no problem with keeping it. Duplicates (or near dups) are easy to deal with -- it's when there is no requirement that you have problems. Not sure I agree with you on transports. While HTTP will satisfy many requirements, it won't cover everything. For example, if a connection oriented (CO) transport isn't available, you may want a messaging transport, e.g., MQSeries. Another example might be two phase commit transactions (as distinct from transactions as used in the EDI world), HTTP won't help much. Best regards, Henry ------------------------- At 07:10 PM 12/05/2000 +0100, Yves Lafon wrote: >On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote: > >> Henry Lowe wrote: >> >> > The current text for DR 122 is given. Then (in the proposal) it is >> > suggested that this text for DR 122 is a dup(licate) of DR 122. >> > Unless there is a typo here, I don't understand what is a duplicate >> > of what. >> >> Sorry, this was a typo. Thanks for spotting this. >> >> Here's the correct text. >> >> Proposal for DR 122 >> --------------------- >> Considering that we will NOT be looking at other mappings, I consider >> this requirement as a dup of DR 121 [1], and so I propose that we drop it. > >Well, it is not exactly a dup, as an outcome of this requirement is ><< WG may consider issue a warning about the possible problems of reusing >non-safe "transports">> >Also, we don't know if people will want in the future to start another >binding (although it is quite unlikely). >Also work on the HTTP binding will provide the right warnings to address >this DR. (So I am for keeping it :) ) > >-- >Yves Lafon - W3C / Jigsaw - XML Protocol - HTTP >"Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras." >
Received on Tuesday, 5 December 2000 13:32:07 UTC