- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:14:40 -0400
- To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, jacek@systinet.com, jones@research.att.com, marc.hadley@sun.com, moreau@crf.canon.fr, xmlp-comments@w3.org
Stuart, I'm in complete agreement with your evaluation of the binding framework, and I'm not out to set a precedent that other features need to consider design-time issues. My concern is that our response[1] to the TAG said this; "We have defined a new "web method" feature [3] that enables applications to control the use of GET and POST." and the proposal[2] they read said (and still says); "Bindings to HTTP or such other protocols SHOULD use the Web Method Specification Feature to give applications control over the Web methods to be used when sending a SOAP message." If by "application" we meant the runtime chunk of software, including the SOAP library (if any), rather than code developed by the application developer, then we should have said that, and not expected the TAG (well, two thirds of them anyhow 8-) to know this nuance of XMLP WG nomenclature. Instead, the word could easily have been interpreted by the TAG as referring to the application code written by developers. So ... If it is the case that I was using a different interpretation of "application", then I agree that we can close issue 227. But we should also clarify our response to the TAG to make it clear what it was that we were saying. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2002Jun/0006 [2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/06/soap12-part2.html#WebMethodFeature MB -- Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred) Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. distobj@acm.org http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Thursday, 22 August 2002 11:29:43 UTC