Re: [bug?] Re: Issue 332-tl6: Use of RespondWith

A small correction: [added word "direct".  If this word is not ok, then use "immediate".  I also removed ", as needed" as it is not necessary.]
 
[128a]The RespondWith element MUST NOT be a direct child of a CompoundRequest
element. Each request that is encapsulated inside a CompoundRequest
element may or may not have its own RespondWith element child.

Jose, please make this change in the PR-DRAFT.
 
Thanks
 
/Shivaram

Jose Kahan <jose.kahan@w3.org> wrote:
Tommy,

On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 10:36:30PM +0100, Tommy Lindberg wrote:
> Yes you are right, my intention was to, not allow RespondWith 

Thanks for the clarification.

I propose to reword [128a] as follows:


[128a]The RespondWith element MUST NOT be a child of a CompoundRequest
element. Each request that is encapsulated inside a CompoundRequest
element may or may not have its own RespondWith element child, as needed.


How does it reads now?

-jose


--
Secure Web Services, PKI, Software Architecture, Java, 
Product Strategy and Management Consultant:
http://www.geocities.com/shivarammysore/