Re: proposing closing issues 26, 3, 14, 23, 32, 65, 69

+1 to all, in particular:
  - no SOAP 1.1
  - split "support for SOAP 1.2" into separate issues

Sorry Jacek, I manage to escape your recommendation to change the 
title. ;-)

JJ.

Jacek Kopecky wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> issue 26 [issues list at http://tinyurl.com/mwuy] wants us to replace
> transmission primitives by MEPs. I believe the publication of part 2
> resolves this issue. I therefore propose we close it.
> 
> Issue 3 basically asks us how arrays (a SOAP Data Model term) are
> declared in XML Schema. We don't deal with SOAP Encoding (nor the Data
> Model) at the moment so I suggest we close this issue. I think until we
> tackle SOAP Data Model fully (if ever), we shouldn't try to do bits of
> it.
> 
> Issue 14 asks us to support SOAP 1.2 features. I believe the support is
> there in the published WD in the form of features & properties.
> Therefore I suggest we close issue 14.
> 
> Issue 23 is generally about full support for SOAP 1.2, and specifically
> it mentions many aspects of the SOAP 1.2 Recommendation. I suggest that
> we split this issue into separate issues on support for the Data Model
> and Encoding (one), RPC (two), transport binding framework (three).
> Features are already covered by issue 14. After such split, we can close
> issue 23.
> 
> Issue 32 asks whether we're going to support SOAP 1.1 in particular and
> individual versions of SOAP and other protocols in general. I suggest we
> close it saying we won't support SOAP 1.1 because we don't see the need
> for further parallel deployment of both versions of SOAP, and for the
> general question we can say that issues should be raised for other
> bindings (than SOAP) if necessary.
> 
> Issue 65 deals with a SOAP/FTP binding. I'd close it by saying that we
> don't plan to provide such a binding in WSDL 2, that such a binding can
> be created independently of this WG, and that SOAP 1.2 FTP binding would
> have to be created along with the WSDL SOAP/FTP binding parts, as
> suggested by the originator of the issue.
> 
> Issue 69 (wrongly titled) deals with the optionality of SOAP headers. I
> suggest we close the issue by pointing to our resolution to remove the
> direct soap:headers attribute way of specifying SOAP headers. Features
> can handle optionality of headers as appropriate.
> 
> If there's any discussion, please modify the subject line as necessary.
> 
> Enjoy the flooding, 8-)
> 
>                    Jacek Kopecky
> 
>                    Systinet Corporation
>                    http://www.systinet.com/
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 4 December 2003 12:30:26 UTC