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

RE: Issue 153: overlapping section 2 and 4

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 13:29:33 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F192764@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Doug Davis'" <dug@us.ibm.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>, Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>, Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>, Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Doug, Jean-Jacques,

Something of a process oriented concern that I have here is that we have no
doubt addressed and closed a number of issues through changes to both
Section 2 and Section 4. I would be concerned that trimming down/removal of
chunks of sections 2 or 4 may also 'remove' resolutions to issues that we
have now closed. That's not a "...don't do it...", but a "...be sure to
track
closure of resolved issues...".

Best regards 

Stuart
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: 19 November 2001 07:05
> To: Jean-Jacques Moreau
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org; Henrik Frystyk Nielsen; Jean-Jacques Moreau;
> Marc Hadley; Martin Gudgin
> Subject: Re: Issue 153: overlapping section 2 and 4
> 
> 
> Given the recent discussions on how Headers and _the_ Body
> are related (or not), I would think option 2 would be a better
> choice.
> -Dug
> 
> 
> "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>@w3.org on 
> 10/30/2001 05:51:59
> AM
> 
> Sent by:  xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
> 
> 
> To:   "xml-dist-app@w3.org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> cc:   Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>, 
> Jean-Jacques Moreau
>       <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>, Martin
>       Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
> Subject:  Issue 153: overlapping section 2 and 4
> 
> 
> 
> Doug has pointed out that section 2.2 (SOAP actors and nodes) was
> largely a duplicate of section 4 (presumably section 4.2.2).
> 
> Having looked into this issue some more, I believe this issue is
> not just around section 2.2 and section 4.2.2, but also involved
> sections 2.3, 2.4, 4.2.3 and 4.3.1.
> 
> There are three main alternatives:
> 
>   1. Leave things as is. I don' think this is an option; this
>      will create confusion in people's head and make the spec
>      more difficult to maintain.
>   2. Trim down (or completely remove) sections 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4,
>      and move the corresponding text to sections 4.2.2, 4.2.3 and
>      4.3.1.
>   3. Trim down instead sections 4.2.2, 4.2.3 and 4.3.1, and
>      (possibly) move the corresponding text to sections 2.2, 2.3
>      and 2.4.
> 
> Today, section 4 does not only specify the format of the
> envelope, but also, to a certain extent, how an evelope should be
> processed; whilst section 2 does not only describe how a message
> should be processed, but also, to a certain extent, what its
> format is.
> 
> Option 2 and 3 above each go further the route of separating
> format from processing, although a complete separation might be
> difficult to achieve.
> 
> It is also worth noticing that section 2 (largely) treats header
> and body blocks interchangeably, which I think is the right way
> to go, as far as the processing model is concerned; whilst
> section 4 clearly distinguishes between header and body blocks.
> 
> Option 3 above would help describe processing in terms of blocks,
> independently of whether blocks are header blocks or body blocks.
> 
> The editors would welcome feedback on how to best resolve this
> issue.
> 
> Jean-Jacques.
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 19 November 2001 08:29:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:05 GMT