W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2005

Suggested Minor Errata for "Resource Representation SOAP Header Block" http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PR-soap12-rep-20041116/

From: Simon Kissane <skissane@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 08:49:23 +1100
Message-ID: <82fa6638050126134925cca1d8@mail.gmail.com>
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org

[Sorry if this is a repeat message. I sent it to this mailing list
before I subscribed, and fear that it didn't get through because I
wasn't a subscriber when I sent it.]


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Simon Kissane <skissane@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:10:25 +1100
Subject: Suggested Minor Errata for "Resource Representation SOAP
Header Block" http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PR-soap12-rep-20041116/
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org


Hi,

My interpretation of the "Resource Representation SOAP Header Block"
is that section 4.3.3 is non-normative, which I believe is the
interpretation everyone would agree with. However, the first time I
read it, I formed the impression that the "HTTP resolver"
functionality in it was some form of optional part of the
specification. I might suggest, that to avoid any such impression
being formed in the minds of a less than careful reader, that the
section be moved to an appendix and clearly marked as "NON-NORMATIVE".
(At first, I read the wording "Extension example:"  to mean, not that
this section is non-normative, but that this part of the specification
is an example of the power of the extensibility mechanisms in the
specification.)

Also, I could not find a public comment email address, or editors
email addresses, for this specification, so I am reporting it here. Is
this the right place? I would suggest that every recommendation should
clearly identify in its introduction how errata or other such issues
are to be raised.

Cheers
Simon Kissane
Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2005 21:49:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:19 GMT