- From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 08:25:09 -0400
- To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org, John Ibbotson <john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com>, moreau@crf.canon.fr, Martin Gudgin <martin.gudgin@btconnect.com>, Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@uk.sun.com>
request-response would work for me. Williams, Stuart wrote: >>what's wrong with simple-request-response >> > > Simplicity is somewhat subjective and doesn't really indicate the nature of > the constraint (that its about a single request/response on isolation from > all others that might be going on between the same two entities at about the > same time). > > I'd prefer just plain 'request-response' adding the preface 'simple'. > > > Stuart > > >>Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: >> >> >>>The spec editors took an action item to request input on >>> >>determining the >> >>>name for "single-request-response MEP" described in part 2 [1]. John >>>Ibbotson recently brought up the issue that it was not >>> >>particularly well >> >>>described as to what was meant. >>> >>>The editors have taken the feedback and attempted to >>> >>clarify the text >> >>>(already in [1]) but did not manage to come up with a >>> >>better short name, >> >>>partly because such names tend to describe single aspects >>> >>rather than a >> >>>complete picture. Therefore, unless we hear strongly otherwise, the >>>proposal is to keep the existing short name. >>> >>>Comments? >>> >>>Henrik Frystyk Nielsen >>>mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com >>> >>>[1] >>> >>> > http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/04/11/soap12-part2-1.55.html#singlereqresp > mep > > >
Received on Friday, 19 April 2002 08:26:29 UTC