W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-resource-access@w3.org > September 2009

RE: safeness text

From: Ram Jeyaraman <Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 17:06:05 +0000
To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
CC: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>, "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
Message-ID: <503546C5699C1144BDEA0D0DFFE7F8810980EABD@TK5EX14MBXC112.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Thanks for the clarification. I am fine with the suggested approach.

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Yves Lafon
Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 8:05 AM
To: Ram Jeyaraman
Cc: Doug Davis; public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject: RE: safeness text

On Wed, 2 Sep 2009, Ram Jeyaraman wrote:

> Fine with me. I suggest making this amendment to the previous resolution 
> during the next WG call so it is officially recorded. Thanks.

Hi Ram,
Note that the WG already decided to close issue 6533, with an action to 
the editors to integretate it as best as possible. So we may indeed do a 
heads-up during the teleconference, but I am not sure it is mandatory to 
do so.

> From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Doug Davis
> Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 6:27 AM
> To: Yves Lafon
> Cc: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
> Subject: Re: safeness text
>
>
> Works for me.  thanks
>
> thanks
> -Doug
> ______________________________________________________
> STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
> (919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
> The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.
>
> Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
>
> 09/02/2009 09:19 AM
>
> To
>
> Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
>
> cc
>
> public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
>
> Subject
>
> Re: safeness text
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 2 Sep 2009, Doug Davis wrote:
>
>> Yves,
>>  For the one operation in each spec that has been deemed 'safe', I was
>> thinking of just adding this text after the definition of the operation:
>>
>> This operation will not result in any side effect imputable to the
>> requester. This means that in case of an underlying protocol error that
>> might get unnoticed, resending the same request can be done automatically..
>>
>> Does this work for you?
>
> Yes, with a minor modification, can we say "This operation is safe; It
> will not result in..." ?
> (ie: I'd like to keep the 'safe' in the text somewhere)
>
> --
> Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
>
>        ~~Yves
>
>

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves
Received on Tuesday, 8 September 2009 17:06:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:18:13 GMT