- From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 16:58:46 -0000
- To: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
TBTFer's, I said that I would catalogue feedback we have received (more or less) in response to David's request for reviews [1].I've listed this below, [2-9], along with a sentence giving intended to summarise the comment/issue raised. Reviewer's, If you have posted feedback/commentary on the revised transport binding material that I have missed or if you feel my oneliners misrepresent your comments/concern please let me (and the TBTF) know. Best regards Stuart -- David Falliside's request for reviews. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Nov/0272.html Doug Davies - Definition of features has broader scope than binding framework - Onus to decide how best to express a feature lies with binding spec, not the communicating node. [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Dec/0036.html Doug Davies - asks for clarifiaction on a reference. [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Dec/0037.html Glyn Normington - Concern about the small repetoire of features. - Detail comment on SRR MEP FSMs and diagram (consistency) - HTTP versions and assumptions about protocol interop (presumably HTTP 1.0/1.1 interop and SOAP). [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Dec/0048.html Eamon O'Tuathail - Comment that intro material from earlier versions appears to have been lost. - Detailed comment on SRR MEP FSM, temporal overlap of request and response. [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Dec/0038.html Glen Daniels - Don't repeat the state diagrams (editorial) - Suggest illustrative examples of what goes on the wire for HTTP? - Editorial comments on 'currentMessage', infoset and attachments. - framing should be clear that this is a work in progress [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Dec/0031.html Kumeda-san - Positioning of status code listings - HTTP Status code 202 useful and required. - 204 response require no message body (per RFC 2616)... current text implies empty envelope. - Request more guidance on the use of 4xx and 5xx series HTTP status codes. [7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Dec/0121.html Raj Nair [recorded as Issue 178] - Requirements on bindings imposed by end-to-end features. [8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Dec/0104.html [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Nov/0248.html
Received on Friday, 11 January 2002 12:00:03 UTC