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 07:40:38 -0700
Message-ID: <92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E0145CD6A@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "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>, "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr] 
> Sent: 20 August 2002 13:44
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: W3C Public Archive; Marc Hadley; Nilo Mitra; Noah 
> Mendelson; Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
> Subject: 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.

OK, how should we proceed. This issue is closed as far as the WG is
concerned.

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

Done.

> 
> > 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?

Good question. What do the other editors think?

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

Done, issue closed in edtodo

> 
> > 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?

That's my gut feeling. Issue closed in edtodo

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

Done. Entry closed in edtodo.

> 
> > 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 ;-)).

Well, given we state in the intro what the prefixes map to that isn't
necessary. I'll do a pass through the spec and make this change.

> 
> > 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).


You are correct, this has already been done. Thanks.

> 
> > 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>/.

OK, I'll put in the appropriate markup and update the stylesheet.

> 
> > 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.

OK. Closed in the edtodo

> 
> > 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.

Done.

> 
> > 357: Change DataEncodingUnknown to SOAPEncodingUnknown
> >
> Sounds good.
> 
> > 373: suspect this issue really needs to be kicked 'upstairs' to the 
> > WG.
> >
> Agree.

OK. Mail sent to xml-dist-app.[1]

Cheers

Gudge

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Aug/0028.html
Received on Thursday, 22 August 2002 10:40:49 GMT

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