- From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:24:24 +0000
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- CC: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, XML Protocol Discussion <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: > Looks good - only comment is that "support" may be understood in many > different--does it mean "define" or "enable", or both? We saw this many > times in the requirements document [1]. In this case, I think we mean > both so what about saying "define or enable" instead or something to > that effect? > Enable maybe. I would hope that there would be less MEPs than bindings - or to put it another way I would expect bindings to declare support (there's that word again) for one or more MEPs from a common external set rather than define its own. For me that was one of the points of the binding framework: common features supported by multiple bindings. Marc. > >>""A binding specification MUST support one or more Message Exchange >>Patterns. A binding specification MAY state that it supports >>additional >>features, >>in which case the binding specification MUST provide for >>maintaining state, performing processing, and transmitting >>information in a manner consistent with the specification for >>those features." >> > > Henrik > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-xmlp-reqs-20010319/ > > -- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com> XML Technology Centre, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 05:24:34 UTC