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

Re: Editorial proposal for issue 250

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 13:55:45 +0100
Message-ID: <3DC7BFD1.7070003@crf.canon.fr>
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
CC: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Marc Hadley <mark.hadley@Sun.COM>, www-archive@w3.org

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
> Given the success of the table describing mU and role I was wondering
> whether we can clarify issue 250 by adding another one listing the roles
> in a similar manner (see attached) in section 2.2 where we have the list
> of role definitions [1]. This may make it easier to see than the current
> bullet list.

Sounds good. Done.

> Btw, in table 2 "SOAP Nodes Forwarding behaviour", we should refer to
> the names "next", "ultimateReceiver", and "none" as *short-names* as we
> in section 2.2 defined the role *name* as a URI.

Sounds good as well. Done.

> Comments?
> Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
> mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part1.xml#soaproles
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Table X: SOAP roles defined by this specification Short-name Name 
> Description
> next "http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope/role/next" Each SOAP 
> intermediary and the ultimate SOAP receiver MUST act in this role.
> none "http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope/role/none" SOAP nodes MUST 
> NOT act in this role.
> ultimateReceiver 
> "http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope/role/ultimateReceiver" To 
> establish itself as an ultimate SOAP receiver a SOAP node MUST act in 
> this role. SOAP intermediaries MUST NOT act in this role
Received on Tuesday, 5 November 2002 07:56:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:24 GMT