RE: issue 227

Hi Mark,

Well it would appear that the resolution recorded in xmlp-comments [1] may
not fully reflect what the WG appears to have agreed at the F2F. At the
moment I am not arguing with the resolution, only seeking to have it as
stated clearly. The provide/use distinction in the application of the word
mandatory has always been at the heart of this issue and the WG's intent in
that regard was not clear(at least to me) in [1] - hence the clarification
questions to Mark Jones. Incidentally, I missed the posting of this
resolution [1] because I was ommitted from the list of addressees.

I don't think taking the discussion to xml-dist-app will help the WG be
clear about what it resolved.

To pull in the slack a little... in the hope that it will enable the WG to
lay this issue to rest...

I have acknowledged that I am ok. with the inclusion in the framework of the
concept that a binding may mandate the use of a feature that it provides -
I'm not exstatic about it, but I can live with it. It restores the situation
that, via the framework, a binding can be explicit about mandated use,
rather than it having 'mandated use' be 'implicit' from the name of the
binding.

The resolution in [1] is not clear whether the 'mandatory' in " * We will
leave 'web method' as a mandatory feature of the http binding." applies to
provision or use. Mark Jones clarification <maj>'Mandatory' here means
provision.  'use' is discretionary.</maj> does seem to be at odds with the
extract from the minutes that you cite. 

As you might expect I am happy with Mark's clarification, although I imagine
that you are not ;-).

If we examine the other case... ie.. mandatory applies to use of the
feature... I have two remarks:

1) IMO the case for making use 'mandatory' has not been made.
2) It is impossible for an external observer to assess compliance with a
MUST use constraint on the Web Method feature - so the constraint is largely
meaningless.

On the grounds that it is a meaningless constraint... I can actually live
with it :-) although I am surprised the WG would wish to impose it.

Best regards

Stuart
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2002Jul/0093.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: 19 August 2002 21:49
> To: Mark A. Jones
> Cc: Williams, Stuart; xmlp-comments@w3.org; jacek@systinet.com;
> marc.hadley@sun.com; Mark Baker; moreau@crf.canon.fr
> Subject: Re: issue 227
> 
> 
> (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 Tuesday, 20 August 2002 05:44:49 UTC