FW: LC #219 (was RE: Raw minutes of 10 July 2002)

[Copying to xml-dist-app]

-----Original Message-----
From: Williams, Stuart 
Sent: 11 July 2002 11:33
To: 'Jean-Jacques Moreau'
Cc: 'w3c-xml-protocol-wg@w3.org'
Subject: LC #219 (was RE: Raw minutes of 10 July 2002)


> 219
> 
> Henrik: Spec is clear enough, reluctant to change.
> DavidO: Wait for Stuart to be on call.
> DavidF: No replacement text available.
> 
> Postponed.Wait for Stuart.

Firstly, this one arises from a pre-LC review. I was also reminded of it in
with Don's posting to Glen [1] so when and re-read 219. My initial reaction
on re-reading it was... "what was I on?", however on further reflection 

[2] states: "A feature expressed as SOAP headers is known as a SOAP module,
and each module is specified according to the rules in 3.2 SOAP Modules."
This is repeated in [3] as "A SOAP module is a feature which is expressed as
SOAP headers."

The problem with the language is that it says that a "SOAP module" is-a kind
of "feature" whereas (IMO) a "SOAP module" is a *realisation* of one or more
features through the *use* of "SOAP headers" just as binding is a
*realisation* of one or more features through the *use* of an underlying
protocol. Bindings are not features and modules are not features... both
realise features, but in characteristically different ways.

Does that clarify the comment I raised?

I think the fix is easy (and editorial).

Replace the sentence in at [2] with:

"A SOAP module realises the functionality of one or more features using SOAP
headers. Each module is specified according to the rules in Section 3.2 SOAP
Modules."

Replace the sentence at [3] with:

"A SOAP module realises the functionality of one or more features using SOAP
headers."

Regards

Stuart
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Jul/0105.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part1-20020626/#extensibility
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part1-20020626/#soapmodules

Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2002 17:20:37 UTC