Re: LC Issue 210

I think the current text in 5.1.1 is fine and nothing needs 
changing or adding. The text has changed from saying where the 
encodingStyle attr 'SHOULD NOT' appear to now saying where it 'MAY' 
appear so I think 209 is covered.

Regards,
Marc.

On Thursday, July 11, 2002, at 06:36 PM, Thompson, Lynne R wrote:

>
> In Section 5.1.1, which sentence is being changed from SHOULD NOT 
> to MUST?
> The text in the LC version is different from the text noted in 
> Issue 209.
> I do not mind adding the text raised in Issue 209 to clarify what 
> is in the
> current spec.
>
> Lynne
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Gudgin [mailto:martin.gudgin@btconnect.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 10:05 AM
> To: Kevin Johnsrude; noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: LC Issue 210
>
>
>
> How does it contradict?
>
> 'The encodingStyle attribute SHOULD NOT appear on the SOAP
>  Envelope [reference to 5.1], SOAP Body [reference to 5.3] or SOAP
>  Header [reference to 5.2] element information items.'
>
> says 'not on soap:Envelope, soap:Header or soap:Body'
>
>  'Each SOAP header block element information item:
> ...
>
>   * MAY have an encodingStyle attribute information item in its
>     [attributes] property.'
>
> says 'may appear on CHILDREN of soap:Header'
>
> Or are you making another point that I'm missing?
>
> Gudge
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kevin Johnsrude" <kevinj@roguewave.com>
> To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
> Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 5:26 PM
> Subject: LC Issue 210
>
>
>>
>> In LC #210 [1] the statement:
>> Each SOAP header block element information item:
>> ...
>>
>>  * MAY have an encodingStyle attribute information item in its
>>    [attributes] property.
>>
>> directly contradicts the closed LC #209 [2]:
>>
>> Section 5.1.1:
>>> The encodingStyle attribute SHOULD NOT appear on the SOAP
>>> Envelope [reference to 5.1], SOAP Body [reference to 5.3] or SOAP
>>> Header [reference to 5.2] element information items.
>> Not sure whether this should be a MUST because of the scoping 
>> rules for
>> encodingStyle ?
>>
>> Resolution:
>>     The XMLP WG has decided to close issue 209 by changing the SHOULD
>>     to a MUST, in order to bring the text in agreement with the
>>     schema. It considers this issue is editorial in nature.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Kevin
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x210
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x209
>>
>
>
--
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
XML Technology Center, Sun Microsystems.

Received on Friday, 12 July 2002 04:18:46 UTC