UWS 1.1 working draft

[Paul Harrison]

On 2014-06 -04, at 23:45, Mark Taylor <m.b.taylor at bristol.ac.uk> wrote:

>> Having said that, I'm not crazy about optional things, especially those that
>> are admittedly tricky to implement, as support may not be widely available.
>> And I don't know that there is any way to describe your service such that you
>> convey which version of UWS you support as it is always secondary to the
>> actual standardID of the capability.
> 
> Optional things are not problematic from the point of service developers,
> the downside is at the client end.  As a client writer, I'd still like
> to see this as an optional feature; the benefit of using it would be
> sufficient that I'd envisage writing code to try the blocking endpoint
> first, and fall back to the old behaviour if not.  I don't think the
> fact that the presence/absence of such a capability is not advertised
> is a much of a problem here.  Just my 2c.

As proposed in the WD this blocking behaviour is not optional in UWS 1.1, but mandatory - the wording is all about telling 1.1 clients what to expect if they come across a 1.0 service….

Paul.