W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > August 2001

RE: mustUnderstand reformulation

From: Nilo Mitra (EMX) <Nilo.Mitra@am1.ericsson.se>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 09:14:29 -0500
Message-ID: <C358DED30DFED41192E100508BB392278C38FD@eamrcnt716.exu.ericsson.se>
To: "'Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com'" <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Hello Noah:
I have two comments on your joint reformulation for mU:

1) Suggest replacing "endpoint" with "ultimate SOAP receiver"

2) First part of first sentence of  proposed new second paragraph:

> The SOAP mustUnderstand attribute is useful for detecting 
> situations in which required software is not available at a 
> node which has been correctly targeted; 

I think this sentence is a bit confusing, and seems to not quite fit with the
rest of the para which discusses what to do when the targeted node was never reached.
If the node has been "correctly targeted" and "the required software is not available", 
then  section 4.2, second para seems quite clear that the node should not "process the SOAP
message at all, and fail."

I'm also a little concerned that the proposed *specification* text is straying
from what must be done, or what must happen to guidelines/suggestions for how to deal 
(albeit interesting) situations.

If this *part* of the first sentence were removed, and it started "It is not intended..",
I don't think your points would be lost.

Thanks
Nilo
nilo.mitra@ericsson.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com [mailto:Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 5:12 PM
> To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: mustUnderstand reformulation
> 
> 
> Glen Daniels and I were asked to propose a reformulation for
> "mustUnderstand".  What follows is a first cut for review and 
> discussion by
> the workgroup.  The reformulation also attempts to remove 
> overlap between
> section 4.2.3 and the processing model stuff.  We did this in 
> parallel with
> Mark Hadley's work on eliminating overlap, so we probably 
> unintentionally
> duplicated some of his effort.  Presumably, the two 
> approaches can easily
> be reconciled if the workgroup believes that our overall direction is
> correct.
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 9 August 2001 07:41:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:03 GMT