W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > June 2004

Re: [Draft] Agenda, 24 June 2004 WS Desc telcon

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 01:26:49 +0600
Message-ID: <069801c45958$0f4c9dd0$9f484109@LANKABOOK>
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, "Web Services Description" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Hi Jonathan,

> ?ED       2004-05-19: Editors to fix component model to remove 
>                       default* properties, use mapping from syntax 
>                       instead.  (Issue 182)

Done (for SOAP).

> ?ED       2004-05-21: Sanjiva to implement the resolution that 
>                       @soapaction not there means no soapaction.  
>                       (Issue 1)

Done.

> ?ED       2004-05-21: Part 3 Editors to add a statement to relate 
>                       each of the two soap meps to wsdl meps. 
>                       (Issue 191)

Done as part of default rules.

> ?ED       2004-05-21: Editors to add ednotes to the spec to 
>                       indicate areas that had contention.  (Issue 
>                       190)

Can people indicate where they'd like these notes to go? I know of
places IBM has contention with but not necessarily where everyone
has contention with ..

> ?ED       2004-05-21: Editors to write up that we allow 
>                       http:version etc. in the soap binding when 
>                       the protocol is http.  (Issue 190) 

DaveO has done this but it needs to be updated to reflect new style
of binding (attribute centric).

> ?ED       2004-05-21: Editors to update part 3 to say that for SOAP 
>                       Response MEPs the URI will be generated 
>                       following the HTTP binding rules for 
>                       generating a URI (for GET).  (Issue 61)

Done as part of default rules.

> ?ED       2004-05-21: Editors to update soap binding default rules 
>                       to allow use of MTOM. (Issue 184)

Done.

> ?ED       2004-06-10: Editors should correct issues 208, 213, 
>                       215, come back to WG if there are any 
>                       questions.
> ?ED       2004-06-17: Editor action to check that multiple style 
>                       values are allowed.
> ?ED       2004-06-17: Editors to adopt Mark's proposal for 216, but 
>                       reword using MUST.
> ?ED       2004-06-17: Editors to incorporate editorial fix addressing 
>                       issue 222.
> ?ED       2004-06-17: Editors to incorporate proposed resolution for 
>                       223 and 224.
> ?ED       2004-06-17: Editors to incorporate David Booth's clarification
>                       in section 8.3.

TBD .. getting too late.

Sanjiva.
Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2004 15:27:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:31 GMT