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

Re: LC Issue 250: closed, editorial: text changed

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 15:58:04 -0400
To: reagle@w3.org
Cc: "Hoelzing, Gerd" <gerd.hoelzing@sap.com>, "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF280E3A73.90F1D811-ON85256C40.006CDCC0@lotus.com>

(left xmlpComments off, as we don't usually use it for discussion)

I think Joseph's position is clear now.  I don't feel strongly one way or 
the other:  I think the spec is OK as it stands, but (other than some 
slight concern about adding to the length a bit) I have no real problem 
with pulling together the definitions as Joseph suggests.  This does seem 
to me to be a question on which the WG should take a stand (as opposed to 
us editors proceeding), particularly since I think it represents at least 
a bit of a change to a resolution earlier agreed to.

So, should we suggest that Joseph's proposal be put before the WG?  If so, 
I expect to be more or less neutral, but would strongly argue that the 
editors should have some license to revise the details to improve the flow 
of the resulting text.  Thanks.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------







Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
09/26/2002 02:09 PM
Please respond to reagle

 
        To:     "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" 
<henrikn@microsoft.com>, <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, 
<xmlp-comments@w3.org>
        cc:     "Hoelzing, Gerd" <gerd.hoelzing@sap.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
        Subject:        Re: LC Issue 250: closed, editorial: text changed


On Thursday 26 September 2002 01:21 pm, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> It's specified in 2.2 which says:
>
> "http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope/role/next". Each SOAP
> intermediary and the ultimate SOAP receiver MUST act in this role and
> MAY additionally assume zero or more other SOAP roles.
>
> So EVERYONE acts as 'next'. Or put another way, if you see something
> marked soap:role='http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope/role/next'
> then it IS for you! Are you saying we need MORE definition than this?

Instead of defining something by listing it's membership (which includes 
everyone and then folks might ask what's the point -- I have a similar 
question with "none"?) It's good to define things with an identifier, 
expected behaviour, and conformance. Also, this is an opportunity to 
reflect how you want others to define their roles when they develop 
them...

Role Name:
                 next
Identifier:
                 http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope/role/next
Definition
                 Any SOAP node that receives and processing a SOAP message 
as defined
                 in section 2.6 
Conformance:
                 By definition, all SOAP nodes except the originating node 
MUST
                 conform to this role.

Role Name:
                 Ultimate SOAP receiver
Identifier:
                 http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope/role/ultimateReceiver
Definition
                 [Defined in 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part1-20020626/#senderreceiverconcepts 
]
Conformance:
                 [Spread throughout the document.]
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 16:00:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:11 GMT