Re: Transport-specific SOAP semantics - was Re: Visibility

+1

Christopher Ferris
Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: [email protected]
phone: +1 508 234 3624

[email protected] wrote on 02/26/2003 08:59:17 AM:

> 
> +1. And we need to be consistent with this when [if] we decide to
> define "synchronous" and "asynchronous".....
> 
> > I'd like to drain this trout pond.  I propose making sure that the 
glossary
> > definition of "protocol independence" includes the concept that a Web
> > service invocation has the same effect irrespective of the protocol or
> > protocol-level features used to transmit it, and to action the editors 
to
> > use Dave Orchard's  discussion of "visibility" in the document and 
glossary
> > where appropriate.
> > 
> > That way we can move on, and Mark or whomever can raise a formal issue 
that
> > we will record and address for consideration by others later in the 
W3C
> > process.  Of course, if someone on the WG wants to discuss this 
further, we
> > can do that.
> > 
> > I'm sure this will be seen as another sign of "the management" 
exerting
> > schedule, but I think of it as just taking down the "Gone Fishin'" 
sign off
> > the office  door. :-)
> > 
> 
>