W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-soap-jms@w3.org > August 2009

Re: ACTION-91 - proposal to resolve ISSUE-8

From: Phil Adams <phil_adams@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:57:31 -0500
To: Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>
Cc: SOAP-JMS <public-soap-jms@w3.org>, public-soap-jms-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF5FD761DA.4CBE8CED-ON8625760F.007CAA0F-8625760F.007E1E22@us.ibm.com>
Hi Eric,
During today's call I approved your proposed change as described below 
like everyone else did, but while I was making the changes, I realized 
that the new wording is slightly mis-leading. 

For example, the sentence ["The following example shows a textual 
representation of the JMS BytesMessage contents:"] specifically mentions 
BytesMessage, but in the example, there really is no claim that the 
example is in fact a BytesMessage, and the example (I think) also applies 
to a TextMessage as well. 

For this reason, I'm going to propose that we word the sentence like this:
      "The following example shows a textual representation of the JMS 
message body:"   (or perhaps    ...JMS message contents)

and also, the example caption could read like this:
      "Example: Textual representation of the JMS message body for a SOAP 
1.2 request with attachments"     (or perhaps ....of the JMS message 
contents for a....)

Also, on a slightly separate issue, we should probably also re-word the 
example before this (the one without attachments) so that both examples 
are consistent when we have a final decision on the actual wording.

Comments?

Phil 
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Phil Adams (phil_adams@us.ibm.com)

WebSphere Application Server
Office: (512) 286-5041 (t/l 363)
Web Services Development
Cell: (512) 750-6599
IBM - Austin, TX





From:
Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>
To:
SOAP-JMS <public-soap-jms@w3.org>
Date:
08/10/2009 01:12 PM
Subject:
ACTION-91 - proposal to resolve ISSUE-8
Sent by:
public-soap-jms-request@w3.org



(FYI - I linked action 91 with ISSUE-8.  It looks like the design is
that any number of action items can be linked to an issue.  To establish
such a link, it appears you have to go to the *action*, not the issue).

In any case, here's a proposal to resolve action 91.

The proposal in issue 8 is somewhat imprecise.

We currently have this text in section C.2:
"The following represents a human readable version of the JMS message 
body:"

followed by an example block.  I propose that we reword that sentence to
read:
"The following example shows a textual representation of the JMS
BytesMessage contents:"

The text of the example header should also change to this:
"Example: Textual representation of a JMS BytesMessage for SOAP 1.2
request with attachments"

The contents of the example should be modified to *remove* the following
lines from the beginning of the example:

"MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Multipart/Related;boundary=MIME_boundary;
    type="application/xop+xml";
    start="<945414389.1092086011970>";
    startinfo="application/soap+xml"

"
(Note that the blank line at the end of the above quote should also be
removed.)

References:
 * http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/8
 * http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/91
 *
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-soapjms-20090604/#soap-request-with-attachments
Received on Tuesday, 11 August 2009 22:58:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:16:20 GMT