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/Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2005 15:58:36 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 20 September 2007 14:31:03 GMT