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

FW: Proposals for remaining editorial spec issues

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 19:13:27 -0700
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D08618275@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-archive@w3.org>


Forwarding...

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Gudgin 
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 20:08
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen; 'Marc Hadley'; 'Jean-Jacques Moreau';
'noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com'; 'Nilo Mitra'
Subject: RE: Proposals for remaining editorial spec issues




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
> Sent: 25 August 2002 20:02
> To: Martin Gudgin; 'Marc Hadley'; 'Jean-Jacques Moreau'; 
> 'noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com'; 'Nilo Mitra'
> Subject: RE: Proposals for remaining editorial spec issues
> 
> 
> 
> >> 289 [5]
> >> 
> >> No action. Reason is that we don't say anything about how the
> >> forwarding feature is defined for any SOAP messages other than 
> >> stating that it is a feature. This also apply to SOAP faults--they 
> >> are just a certain type of SOAP messages.
> >
> >Hmmm, I think people may have different expectation here, but I can 
> >live with no action.
> 
> Because of discussion at the f2f?

Yes and due to comments from the other editors ( JJM and MJH )

> 
> >> 320 [15]
> >> 
> >> Insert proposed text but remove examples and references to
> HTTP and
> >> SMTP.
> >
> >If this shrinks the proposal by 2/3 then I think we're done ;-)
> 
> I am hoping that is the case :)
> 
> >> 352 [8]
> >> 
> >> Indicate the infoset properties using some style. I think it's
> >> confusing to use [name] as it overloads the [reference] mechanism.
> >
> >This has always been the case and merely follows the convention laid 
> >out in the Infoset spec. I do not want to move away from square 
> >brackets.
> 
> ok
> 
> >> 357 [10]
> >> 
> >> No action. I prefer DataEncodingUnknown because "SOAPEncoding" is
> >> used to mean the encoding defined in part 2 while this subcode can 
> >> apply to any encoding.
> >
> >Oops, we've already made this change.
> 
> You mean that it's too late, that I am being silly, or... ;)

No, I just mean the change is already in the editor's copy. We could, of
course, back it out.

> 
> >> Minor Nits
> >> ----------
> >> 
> >> * 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 merely mirrored what was in the existing text, which said 'SOAP 
> >header'
> 
> Hmm, I thought we went through the spec before to fix these.
> 
> >> * 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?
> >
> >Is what a cut and paste error?
> 
> I can make no sense of the first sentence :(

Ah, I think I understand the confusion. It has to be read as following
on from

'A Module is described in a Module Specification, which adheres to the
following rules. It:'

And I think the asterisk should be removed ;-)

Gudge
Received on Monday, 2 September 2002 22:13:59 GMT

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