Re: Edtodo is now uptodate

> Some [issues] have comments from me, I'd like feedback from the other
> editors

Here you are...

Jean-Jacques.


> 221: I think the resolution is problematic.
>
Agree.

> 286: Add '(which may or may not also be SOAP intermediaries)' to first note?
>
Sounds reasonnable.

> 289: What does an intermediary do when it receives a fault? Is the fault guaranteed to be passed on to the original sender ( or previous intermediary)?
>

Since we don't indicate what happens when faults are generated in the first
place, I think the most we can say is that intermediaries MAY forward fault
messages.

However, I am wondering whether this is not raising a deeper issue, which
is how intermediaries forward response messages. I think sections 2.7.* are
written from the POV of request messages; do they cover adequately response
messages?

> 334a: Mention SOAP Response MEP???? I don't think we need to.
>
I also don't think we should.

> 334b: Seems to me that MEPs are one of the extensibility points in SOAP... So what do we need to say???
>
I'm confused by the issue as well. Ignore?

> 335: I don't think we need to change it, it is only an example...
>
Agree.

> 352a: When refering to the QNames of types use QName production ( prefix:localname ) rather than 'localname'
>
I think this would improve readability (although, strictly speaking, prefix
should be replaced by the corresponding URI ;-)).

> 352b: Use textual identifiers for references rather than numerics
>
I believe I have done this already about two months ago, after this were
pointed out for WSDL... BTW, this is not a stylesheet issue, we only need
to change the key in the bibtex entry (or whatever the XML production name
is).

> 352d: Ensure all occurences of Infoset properties appear in square brackets; e.g. '[specified]' rather than 'specified'.
>
The better long term solution would be to create and use a new XML element.
We should then s/[/<prop>/.

> 353a: Provide examples of 'struct' and 'array' from some programming language
>
I agree with Marc, we should not do this. I also think this is out of scope
for the primer.

> 353b: Provide at least one example for each section
>
Possibly.

> 353c: I propose we change the section title from 'Rules for encoding Graphs in XML' to 'Mapping between XML and the SOAP Data Model' or some such. 20020820 MJG
>
Works for me.

> 357: Change DataEncodingUnknown to SOAPEncodingUnknown
>
Sounds good.

> 373: suspect this issue really needs to be kicked 'upstairs' to the WG.
>
Agree.