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

RE: Clean up of state tables

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 12:19:12 -0700
Message-ID: <92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E02A9FD35@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Cc: "W3C Public Archive" <www-archive@w3.org>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Nilo Mitra" <EUSNILM@am1.ericsson.se>, "Noah Mendelson" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Hadley [mailto:marc.hadley@sun.com] 
> Sent: 23 September 2002 11:28
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: W3C Public Archive; Jean-Jacques Moreau; Nilo Mitra; Noah 
> Mendelson; Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
> Subject: Re: Clean up of state tables
> 
> 
> On Sunday, Sep 22, 2002, at 20:49 US/Eastern, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> >
> > I cleaned up stuff regarding URIs for property values.
> >
> > 	Made sure all URIs that function as bases URIs have trailing
> > 	Changed several occurences of soap/mep/request-response so 
> > soap/mep/soap-response in section 6.3
> >
> > If someone could cast an eye over it and make sure I didn't break 
> > anything...
> >
> Its broken, but I don't think you necessarily broke it ;-). 

OK. From what you say below, I think it was already broken, there was
certainly inconsistency between the various tables in v 1.63.

> The problem 
> is the use of two different state machines in 6.2 and 6.3 that share 
> the same relative names (e.g. Sending+Receiving) but now have four 
> different base URIs:
> 
>
http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap/mep/request-response/RequestingSOAPNode/
>
http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap/mep/request-response/RespondingSOAPNode/
> http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap/mep/soap-response/RequestingSOAPNode/
> http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap/mep/soap-response/RespondingSOAPNode/)
>
> The main problem with this is that the HTTP binding text tries to 
> describe support for both request-response and soap-response in the 
> same place (section 7.5) by only referring to the relative state
names. 
> This was OK before we made the state names absolute since 
> Sending+Receiving was effectively one state shared by both state
> machines. Yhat was why I left the value of reqres:Role in table 9 
> unchanged in my original edit - to make both state machines share the 
> same state names.
>
> I think we have two options:
>
> (i) rethink the base URI for the states such that they are shared by 
> both request-response and soap-response - or -
> (ii) Split section 7.5 into two, one for each state machine.
>
> I'd prefer (i) but LC issue 305 might push our choice to (ii).

It seems to me that (ii) is probably easier and quicker for us as
editors to implement.

>
> Marc.
Received on Monday, 23 September 2002 15:19:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:23 GMT