- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 11:13:00 -0400
- To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "Mark A. Jones" <jones@research.att.com>, xmlp-comments@w3.org, jacek@systinet.com, marc.hadley@sun.com, moreau@crf.canon.fr
Hi Stuart, On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 10:43:57AM +0100, Williams, Stuart wrote: > 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. Agreed. I guess the ball's in your court in terms of deciding what you want to do next; just patch the resolution based on what was agreed at the f2f (though I don't believe that the minutes haven't yet been approved), or reopen the issue. > As you might expect I am happy with Mark's clarification, although I imagine > that you are not ;-). 8-) > 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. I think it was made, in part, during the discussion about inferring the method from the MEP; that not only can the method not be inferred, but that the application should specify it explicitly. That's my recollection anyhow. I agree that probably wasn't spelled out as an explicit position by anyone. > 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. I think it's quite testable at design time, just not at run time; just write some code that uses the APIs provided by the library, and see if the library lets you send a message without specifying a method; if it does, it's not compliant. 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 11:15:00 UTC