W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > July 2002

Action items clarifications

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:03:58 +0200
Message-ID: <3D2D742E.F011CD20@crf.canon.fr>
To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
CC: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Reposting my comments about the following three action items. There are in
fact FOUR, not three action items. Issues/Status:

  1. Generalize protocol headers. Pending
  2. Actor URI/Issue 17. Done [1]
  3. Dup 6q/Issue 32. Pleonasm.
  4. Add issues. Done [2].

Jean-Jacques.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jun/0190.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x63

Jonathan Marsh wrote:

> 4.  Review of Action items.
> <snip/>
>     2002-06-20: Jean-J. Analyze whether WSD should gneralize a
>                  mechanism to provide protocol headers. This was
>                  discussed as part of 6d. Issue: SOAPAction2 #2
>                  actor URI in WSDL? #17
> <snip/>
>     2002-06-20: Issue Editor. Jean-J identifies dup issue: 6q. Issue:
>                  SOAP 1.1 backward compatibility support? #32 (Needs
>                  Clarification.)
>      2002-06-27: Issues list editors to look at the issues in Agenda
> item 9 and make sure that they are not duplicate and add them
> to issue list.

attached mail follows:



Some comments regarding my action items.

Jean-Jacques.

Jonathan Marsh wrote:

>      2002-06-20: Jean-J. Analyze whether WSD should gneralize a
>                  mechanism to provide protocol headers. This was
>                  discussed as part of 6d. Issue: SOAPAction2

I think two different action items have inadvertantly been merged into one below.
First action item (above), pending.

> #2  actor URI in WSDL? #17

Second action item (above), done, and closed during this telcon.

>      2002-06-20: Issue Editor. Jean-J identifies dup issue: 6q. Issue:
>                  SOAP 1.1 backward compatibility support? #32 (Needs
>                  Clarification.)

This is confusing, but in the end I think there is no dup and a moot action item. Issue 6q in the agenda [1] was defined as:

     "6q. Issue: SOAP 1.1 backward compatibility support? #32 [44]"

so it is indeed issue #32 in the issues list. No dup, just an agenda number for the same issue.

>      2002-06-27: Issues list editors to look at the issues in Agenda item 9
>                  and make sure that they are not duplicate and add them to
>                  issue list.

I have pointed out on IRC that:

   * "Issue: Clarification of meaning of soap:operation/@style" is a dup of issue 33.
   * "Issue: SOAP binding violates separation of abstract definitions and concrete bindings" has been added as a new issue (issue #63).
Received on Thursday, 11 July 2002 08:04:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:21 GMT