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

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

From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 16:09:05 -0400
Cc: reagle@w3.org, "Hoelzing, Gerd" <gerd.hoelzing@sap.com>, "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Message-Id: <CEC4ADB6-D18B-11D6-9A0B-0003937568DC@sun.com>

On Thursday, Sep 26, 2002, at 15:58 US/Eastern,  
noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
>
> 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,

The WG already gave the editors license to improve wording and text  
flow on issue resolutions. There's no need to argue for it.

Marc.

>
>
>
> 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.]
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
XML Technology Center, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 16:09:06 GMT

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