- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 16:49:06 -0400
- To: "Mark A. Jones" <jones@research.att.com>
- Cc: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, xmlp-comments@w3.org, jacek@systinet.com, marc.hadley@sun.com, Mark Baker <mbaker@idokorro.com>, moreau@crf.canon.fr
(leaving xmlp-comments CCd, but perhaps we need to take this to xml-dist-app - Stuart?) On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 04:08:41PM -0400, Mark A. Jones wrote: > >>* We will leave 'web method' as a mandatory feature of the http > binding. > >> > > > > The status quo is mandatory provision... which is fine. Mandatory > use... I > > have seen no justification for such a constraint. > > > <maj>'Mandatory' here means provision. 'use' is discretionary.</maj> I think there's a disconnect in terminology here. At the f2f, the proposal was; ] [scribenrm] DF: Proposal...(1) we accept that bindings can specify ] that features are mandatory (2) we sweep the spec to ensure that's ] clear (3) leave web method as a mandatory feature of the http ] binding...i.e. that applications must supply a value for the ] property...and to make sure the spec is clear on that point. -- http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/08/f2f-minutes-day1.html "that applications must supply a value for the property" maps, I believe, to Stuart's notion of "use". Does that make sense? As can be seen in the minutes, I was very clear to verify that this was the case; ] <MarkB> does "must supply a value" imply a default? [...] ] [MarkB] ah, ok, *application* must supply ... that's ok Are we all in synch? MB -- Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred) Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. distobj@acm.org http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Monday, 19 August 2002 17:04:08 UTC