W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > July 2005

RE: WSDL 2.0 LC Comments

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 14:55:52 -0700
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A5082B159E@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>

Further resolutions:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-desc-
> comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 3:37 PM
> To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> Subject: RE: WSDL 2.0 LC Comments
> 


> > > -----
> > > Section 8.3 on Processor Conformance is untestable (unlike Section
> > > 8.1).
> > > Document conformance is adequate for a specification that defines
> > > metadata rather than runtime processing.  Remove section 8.3.
> >
> > The WG agreed with this issue (LC75v) [30], and has substantially
> > reworked the definitions of conformance, including removing the
> > definition of processor conformance.
> >
> > [30] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75v
> 
> We are pleased with the improvement in this area.  However, there are
> still three instances of the term "conformant processor": in the
> Abstract, in the Introduction, and in the third paragraph of Section
1.2
> Document Conformance.  Please remove these remaining occurrences.

Fixed.

> > > Section 2.1.1 Fault Replaces Message and 2.1.2 Message Triggers
> > Fault
> > > don't allow a fault to go to an alternate location in the case
where
> > a
> > > wsa:FaultTo [WS-Addressing] header is specified.  Generalize these
> > > rules
> > > so that addressing mechanisms can be accommodated without defining
> > new
> > > MEPs.
> >
> > The WG agreed with this issue (LC76a) [34], and adding a clause to
the
> > fault rule set that says the destination of the fault may be
modified
> > by a binding or extension and to cite WSA as an informative example.
> >
> > [34] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC76a
> 
> We see that text to allow dynamic redirection of faults was added to
> Section 2.1 Fault Propagation Rules, but the specific rule definitions
> in Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 still say "The fault message MUST be
> delivered to...".  Please make sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 more
consistent.

The WG agreed to make these more consistent as outlined in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2005Jul/0000
.html.
Received on Friday, 8 July 2005 21:56:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:31 GMT