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

possible new editorial issues

From: Volker Wiechers <volker.wiechers@sap.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 18:53:09 +0100
Message-ID: <3C0FB085.777AEE3B@sap.com>
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
While inspecting part 5 + 6 of SOAP 1.2 Part 2 for testable assertion at
the
last F2F in Boston, we (group N-Z) identified 3 potential new
(editorial) issues (s.b).


Regards,
    Volker



Issue 1:

  In paragraph 5.1 (bullet 5) it is asserted that the order of accessors

  follows the order of the parameter signature. However, it is not clear

  what a procedure and a method signature refers to. We suggest that
  we log this as an editorial issue. Should we have a test case for the
inverse?

Issue 2:

  The following paragraph in 5.1 (bullet 7) provides an untestable
  assertion:

     "Invocation faults are handled according to the rules in 5.3 RPC
      Faults. If a protocol binding adds additional rules for fault
     expression, those MUST also be followed"

  We suggest that a reference to the transport binding section should be

  added here and that test scenarios should be described within the TB
  context.


Issue 3:

  The following paragraph in 5.2 provides an untestable assertion:

     "Additional information relevant to the encoding of an RPC
      invocation but not part of the formal procedure or method
      signature MAY be expressed in the RPC encoding. If so, it
      MUST be expressed as a header block."

  We suggest that we log this as an editorial issue.
Received on Thursday, 6 December 2001 11:51:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 22:28:13 UTC