W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > August 2002

RE: Edtodo is now uptodate

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 06:47:15 -0700
Message-ID: <92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E01FC633F@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: "W3C Public Archive" <www-archive@w3.org>, "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "Nilo Mitra" <EUSNILM@am1.ericsson.se>, "Noah Mendelson" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>

Can we get the outstanding resolutions in before we start questioning
the existing resolutions. We will all need to re-read the spec and catch
this kind of thing but I'd rather do it AFTER we've done the work. We
have a deadline of Sept 3rd.

Gudge

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen 
> Sent: 21 August 2002 19:55
> To: Martin Gudgin; 'Jean-Jacques Moreau'
> Cc: 'W3C Public Archive'; 'Marc Hadley'; 'Nilo Mitra'; 'Noah 
> Mendelson'
> Subject: RE: Edtodo is now uptodate
> 
> 
> 
> Getting up to speed - just looking at part 1 and 2 and noted 
> a few nits--otherwise looks great:
> 
> * In the inserted paragraph in section 3.1:
> 
> "The term 'SOAP Module' refers to the set of syntax and 
> semantics associated with implementing a particular feature 
> (see 3.1 SOAP Features) as SOAP headers. A Module is 
> described in a Module Specification, which adheres to the 
> following rules. It:"
> 
> It uses the term "SOAP header". I think we should be careful 
> and use "SOAP header blocks" as otherwise people get confused 
> as to whether we mean *the* SOAP header or blocks. If you are 
> ok then I can fix this.
> 
> * I don't understand the paragraph in section 3.2:
> 
> "MUST, if* the Module implements a Feature which has already 
> been defined elsewhere, clearly refer to that Feature's URI. 
> Note that a Module may EITHER explicitly refer to a separate 
> Feature in this way OR may implicitly define a Feature simply 
> by describing the semantics of the Module."
> 
> Is that a cut&paste error?
> 
> * In section 5.4.5, in the inserted paragraph:
> 
> "The Detail element information item MAY be present in a SOAP 
> fault in which case it carries additional information 
> relative to the SOAP fault codes describing the fault (see 
> 5.4.6 SOAP Fault Codes). For example, the Detail element 
> information item might contain information about a message 
> not containing the proper credentials, a timeout, etc. The 
> presence of the Detail element information item has no 
> significance as to which parts of the faulty SOAP message 
> were processed."
> 
> I think the last sentence easily can be misread to say that a 
> detail element says nothing about whether parts of the 
> message processing succeeded and parts failed. However, we 
> know that a SOAP fault is for the whole message and not parts 
> of the message. What I think we want to say is this:
> 
> "The presence of the Detail element information item has no 
> significance as to which parts of the faulty SOAP message 
> failed during processing."
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Henrik
> 
Received on Thursday, 22 August 2002 09:47:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:22 GMT