RE: Clean up of state tables

Isn't the only place that 'RequestingSOAPNode' and 'RespondingSOAPNode'
only appear at the very top of 7.5.

Why not just change the bullets to read

For binding instances conforming to this specification:

	A SOAP node instantiated at an HTTP client may assume the role
(i.e. the property reqres:Role ) of
"http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap/mep/request-response/RequestingSOAPNode"
or "http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap/mep/soap-response/RequestingSOAPNode"

	A SOAP node instantiated at an HTTP server may assume the role
(i.e. the property reqres:Role ) of
"http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap/mep/request-response/RespondingSOAPNode"
or "http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap/mep/soap-response/RespondingSOAPNode"


Would that work?

Gudge



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Hadley [mailto:marc.hadley@sun.com] 
> Sent: 23 September 2002 12:46
> 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 Monday, Sep 23, 2002, at 15:19 US/Eastern, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> I disagree, (i) is *much* easier editorially, just change a base URI 
> here and there. (ii) is a lot of work, will make the document 
> significantly longer (lots of duplication required) and I 
> hate editing 
> those state transition tables !
> 
> Marc.
> 
> --
> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
> XML Technology Center, Sun Microsystems.
> 
>