Re: Proposal for closing issue 201

+1, how about something along the lines of:

"An ultimate SOAP receiver MUST correctly process the immediate
children of the SOAP body (see 5.3 SOAP Body). However, with the
exception of SOAP faults (see ....), part 1 of this specification
(this document) mandates no particular structure or interpretation
of these elements and provides no standard means for specifying
the processing to be done."

Marc.

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:

> With the recent acceptance of the resolution to issue 192 [1], I think
> we are in a good position to close issue 201 [2] as follows: We instruct
> the editors to add a reference in the text in section 2 [3] (see below)
> to point to the definition of a SOAP fault [4] as being the only type of
> body defined by the SOAP 1.2 specification.
> 
> "An ultimate SOAP receiver MUST correctly process the immediate children
> of the SOAP body (see 5.3 SOAP Body). However, Part 1 of this
> specification (this document) mandates no particular structure or
> interpretation of these elements, and provides no standard means for
> specifying the processing to be done."
> 
> Comments?
> 
> Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
> mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2002Apr/0021.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x201
> [3]
> http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/04/11/soap12-part1-1.86.html#structint
> erpbodies
> [4]
> http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/04/11/soap12-part1-1.86.html#soapfault
> 


-- 
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
XML Technology Centre, Sun Microsystems.

Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 15:38:27 UTC