Re: Proposed text for issue 155

+1. 8-)

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
                   http://www.systinet.com/



On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Doug Davis wrote:

 > oh, geez, no - I see how it can be taken that way, how about:
 >
 >   As described in 2 SOAP Message Exchange Model, not all parts of a
 >   SOAP message may be intented for the ultimate SOAP receiver. The
 >   actor attribute information item is to be used to indicate the
 >   SOAP node at which a particular SOAP header block is targeted.
 >
 > -Dug
 >
 >
 > Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com> on 12/04/2001 02:45:03 PM
 >
 > To:   Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
 > cc:   <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
 > Subject:  Re: Proposed text for issue 155
 >
 >
 >
 >  Dug,
 >  just a question for clarification:
 >  Are you proposing here that the absence of the actor attribute
 > equals the proposed semantics of the ".../any" actor?
 >
 >                    Jacek Kopecky
 >
 >                    Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
 >                    http://www.systinet.com/
 >
 >
 >
 > On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Doug Davis wrote:
 >
 >  > Section 4.2.2 states:
 >  >   As described in 2 SOAP Message Exchange Model, not all parts of a
 >  >   SOAP message may be intended for the ultimate SOAP receiver. SOAP
 >  >   defines an actor attribute information item that can be used to
 >  >   indicate the SOAP node at which a particular SOAP header block is
 >  >   targeted.
 >  >
 >  > I propose to change this to:
 >  >   As described in 2 SOAP Message Exchange Model, not all parts of a
 >  >   SOAP message may be intented for the ultimate SOAP receiver. The
 >  >   actor attribute information item is to be used to indicate the
 >  >   SOAP node at which a particular SOAP header block is targeted if
 >  >   targeting of that header block is desired.
 >  >
 >  > Note 1: The "2" is a typo in the version of the spec I have :-)
 >  > Note 2: This entire piece of text might be removed when issues
 >  >         153 and 160 are resolved.
 >  >
 >  > -Dug
 >  >
 >
 >
 >

Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2001 17:03:19 UTC