Re: LC-Issue #230

Upon reflexion, I think this is already where we are; and in fact we may have
set a trend: isn't the Web Method feature named by a URI already? How else would
we name features that are not modules, not MEPs and not bindings? How would we,
for example, name a (hypothetical) attachment feature?

Features are good; URIs are better.  ;-)

+1 to Glen's proposal.


Don Mullen wrote:

> The problem raised in the discussion of issue LC-230 is that SOAP features
> may be abstract, and it might be difficult to give a definitive URI to them,
> whereas SOAP modules are concrete, expressed as SOAP headers.
> It is unclear to me whether this is a valid argument.

Received on Thursday, 11 July 2002 10:02:39 UTC