W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > May 2007

RE: Checked in soap 1.2 part 3

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 12:35:39 -0700
Message-ID: <4260A18CD3F05B469E67BC6C20464EAC23EF16@rcpbex01.amer.bea.com>
To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Hi Noah,

We did your first 2 comments, we think the 3rd one is overtaken by
events, and we had a recollection that we'd have one table given that
the table is simpler than before.   The latest version of the doc is at

http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/6/soap12-part3-20070516.html

Please let us know if you have any dissatisfaction with our handling of
your comments,

Cheers,
Dave on behalf of XMLP 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 12:30 PM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Checked in soap 1.2 part 3
> 
> Hi Dave.  Mostly this looks very good to me, modulo the fact 
> that I've never been thrilled about including the multicast 
> in this.  Anyway, here are a few more specific comments:
> 
> ============
> > A receiver might, in exceptional circumstances, treat as 
> erroneous, or
> lost, a message that has been received intact. 
> 
> That "might" seems odd given our use of RFC 2119 terminology 
> elsewhere.  I 
> wonder whether that might better be phrased as:
> 
> A receiver MAY (though typically only in exceptional 
> circumstances) treat 
> as erroneous, or lost, a message that has been received intact. 
> ============
> 
> (editorial) I'm not 100% sure, but I think it's preferred to say 
> "binding-specific" rather than "binding specific".
> 
> Anyway, paragraphs 2 & 3 of section 2.2 are inconsistent on 
> this. Probably 
> you should do it one way throughout.
> 
> ============
> > Determination of abnormal operation is outside the scope of this 
> specification. 
> 
> Might it be more appropriate to say that:
> 
> "Except insofar as certain error processing is required or 
> suggested by 
> the use of the SOAP processing model, determination of 
> abnormal operation 
> is outside the scope of this specification." 
> 
> I think, for example, that faulting on an mU header you don't 
> recognize is 
> required.  Though the details are in SOAP Part 1, this MEP 
> normatively 
> appeals to use of that.
> 
> ============
> 
> Editorial:  long ago and far away, when I was in the 
> workgroup, I thought 
> we were leaning toward splitting the table in 2.3 into two 
> tables, one for 
> sender and one for receiver.  That seems to me to make 
> clearer that the 
> properties really do apply to one or the other, but never 
> both.  I can 
> certainly live with what you have if you prefer.
> 
> While it's always nice to hear from you all again, I don't need any 
> explicit followup on these points.  They are offered for your 
> consideration in case you all find them helpful.  So, if you 
> decide for 
> your own reasons to open formal issues to track any of them, 
> that's up to 
> you, but you don't need to respond formally with dispositions on my 
> account.
> 
> Thanks!  I hope I'll be seeing some of you in Banff next week.
> 
> Noah
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn 
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2007 19:36:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:24 GMT