W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlp-comments@w3.org > October 2001

RE: Closing issue 68 (WAS: Issue 68 - status information)

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 14:50:37 -0800
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D055AB185@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Oisin Hurley" <ohurley@iona.com>
Cc: <xmlp-comments@w3.org>

Just to avoid confusion - it should have said "otherwise define any
*status* information"

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen [mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com] 
>Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 14:02
>To: Oisin Hurley
>Cc: xmlp-comments@w3.org
>Subject: Closing issue 68 (WAS: Issue 68 - status information)
>
>
>
>The WG has decided to close this issue with the resolution 
>that we don't call out or otherwise define any information and 
>so status information is handled as any other information that 
>is not fault information. The group believes this covers the 
>requirement.
>
>Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
>mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Oisin Hurley [mailto:ohurley@iona.com]
>>Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 13:35
>>To: xml-dist-app@w3c.org
>>Subject: Issue 68 - status information
>>
>>
>>Excerpt from the agenda:
>>
>>>. Issue 68, convey status information [13] (1.25 + 15)
>>Requirement 703b
>>>[14] says ".... must define a mechanism or mechanisms to allow the
>>>transfer of status information within an XMLP message without 
>>resort to
>>>use of XMLP fault messages....". We need to clarify what exactly is
>>>meant by this requirement, decide whether or not to keep it, 
>>and if so
>>>how do we resolve it.
>>
>>  .. the intent behind this requirement was to allow information not
>>related to the results of an operation to flow back with a 
>>response - the use case being that status information could be 
>>put in the message without having to resort to using fault 
>>messages. I can't recall with any clarity exact details of 
>>what was required - it is also with limited recall that I 
>>think Ray Denenberg may have been the source of this 
>>requirement. Ray, can you confirm or deny?
>>
>> cheers
>>  --oh
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2001 17:59:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:42:26 GMT