- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 20:16:04 -0800
- To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "Noah Mendelson" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "W3C Public Archive" <www-archive@w3.org>, "Nilo Mitra" <EUSNILM@am1.ericsson.se>, "David Fallside" <fallside@us.ibm.com>
Status: All done except 9 which Marc has sent out mail for. >> 4 Section 2.6 >> >> Bullet 3 should be reworded to be clearer and use >infoset terms. "The >> Value of Code" seems ambiguous in the current langauge. > >First time in each part expand with what it really means. First time in part 1 says: Note: Throughout this document, the term "Value of Code " is used as a shorthand for "value of the Value child element information item of the Code element information item" (see 5.4.1 SOAP Code Element). >> 9. Section 2.7.4 >> >> It would be nice to add a note saying that these 18 >exceptions are >> based on a 'writer makes right' approach and that a canonicalization >> algorithm ( a reader-makes-right ) approach would obviate >the need for >> them. > >Marc to send out a note to the WG asking for guidance and also >regarding whether the sig stuff should go in appendix pending >> 13. Section 5.1.1 >> >> For consistency the type information for the attribute >should come >> immediately after the infoset properties > >Just do it done >> 15. Section 5.1.1 >> >> It is implied but not explicitly stated that nested >encodingstyle >> override ancestor declarations. For clarity, I think there should be >> some explicit statement. > >Do nothing Ok >> 16. Section 5.2.1 >> >> The relay AII is missing from the list of AIIs allowed >on a header >> block. > >Just do it done >> 17. Section 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.2.4 >> >> We use different language in 5.2.2 concerning >intermediaries dropping >> these attributes than we do in 5.2.3 and 5.2.4. We should be >> consistent > >Just do it Now says: "If relaying the message, a SOAP intermediary MAY omit a SOAP role attribute information item if its value is "http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope/role/ultimateReceiver" (see 2.7 Relaying SOAP Messages)." >> 18. Section 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.2.4 >> >> Concerning what changes intermediaries make to these >attributes I >> think it would be good to reference 2.7.4 > >Just do it Section 5.2.2 already contained ref to 2.7 (not 2.7.4). All three sections now refer to 2.7 >> 19. Section 5.4.2 >> >> The constraint on the xml:lang attribute values should >be in section >> 5.4.2.1 > >Nope, the constraint is on the parent. Do nothing. Ok >> 20. Section 5.4.2.1 >> >> For consistency the type information for the EII should come >> immediately after the infoset properties > >Just do it done >> 21. Section 5.4.2.1 >> >> We need to add that the [prefix] property of the >xml:lang attribute >> MUST be 'xml' > >Just do it Added: "Note that the definition in of the lang attribute information item requires that the [prefix] is "xml" or any capitalization thereof (see [XML 1.0], Language Identification)." >> 22. Section 5.4.3 >> >> For consistency the type information for the EII should come >> immediately after the infoset properties > >Just do it done >> 23. Section 5.4.5.1 >> >> The language concerning allowable attribute should use >the same style >> as we use for header and body blocks > >Just do it done Henrik Frystyk Nielsen mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com
Received on Monday, 9 December 2002 23:16:50 UTC