W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > February 2002

RE: Resolving the ednote in part 1 section 5.1

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:30:43 -0800
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D05A5403B@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Noah Mendelsohn" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

>This looks fine to me, thanks! .  A couple of comments/suggestions:

Thanks!

>* Editorial:  I think  "It is recommended that end-to-end 
>features should 
>be expressed as SOAP header blocks so that they may avail 
>themselves of 
>the SOAP processing rules" might be replaced by  "It is 
>recommended that, 
>where practical, end-to-end features be expressed as SOAP 
>header blocks, 
>so that SOAP's processing rules can be employed."  Not 
>perfect, but a bit 
>closer I think.  The construction: "It is recommended that end-to-end 
>features should be expressed...so that they"  seemed a bit 
>awkward to me.

Sounds good to me.

>* Did we make a final TBTF decision to leave the introduction 
>of the term 
>"Feature" within chapter 5?  I know we didn't make a firm 
>resolution to 
>move it out, and I think we all agreed not to significantly 
>delay progress 
>to last call.  Still, it's not clear that moving it would be 
>hard.  We've 
>agreed that in the formulation below "feature" becomes a term that has 
>significance well beyond the binding framework, suggesting 
>that having it 
>introduced in the middle of a section on binding frameworks is 
>sub-optimal.

I agree that the concepts could be clarified in the current spec,
however, I don't think the overall *location* (section 5) is completely
wrong given the layout of part 1: section 2 talks about the processing
model, section 4 about the layout, section 5 about *extending* SOAP.

Section 5.1 contains much of the essence of how we anticipate SOAP being
extended but unfortunately it has a completely insignificant title
(Introduction). A cheap fix would be to promote section 5.1 to a
top-level section and call it "SOAP Extensibility" or some such. The
rest of section 5 would remain as its own top-level section called "SOAP
Binding Framework". Does this make sense?

One thing that I want to clarify, however, is that at this time, I would
tend to put this in the "would be nice to have" category rather than the
"must have" category.

Thank you!

Henrik
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 18:31:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:06 GMT