W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlp-comments@w3.org > February 2002

Closing issue 101

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 14:07:57 -0800
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D067C7FD2@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Noah Mendelsohn" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <xmlp-comments@w3.org>

The XML Protocol WG has considered issue 101 as being dealt with (please
see discussion below).

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com

-----Original Message-----
From: David Fallside [mailto:fallside@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 11:34
To: w3c-xml-protocol-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Issue 101: Special status of body - isn't this closed?



My written notes indicate issue 101 was closed on 5 Dec 2001, and one
"HFN" volunteered to send email to xmlp-comments. However, looking at
the official minutes of that meeting [1], the record is unclear. So,
either "HFN" will do this between now and France, or we will take NM up
on his offer in France.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/12/05-minutes.html
............................................
David C. Fallside, IBM
Ext Ph: 530.477.7169
Int  Ph: 544.9665
fallside@us.ibm.com



|---------+---------------------------------->
|         |           Noah                   |
|         |           Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IB|
|         |           M@Lotus                |
|         |           Sent by:               |
|         |           w3c-xml-protocol-wg-req|
|         |           uest@w3.org            |
|         |                                  |
|         |                                  |
|         |           02/14/2002 10:54 AM    |
|         |                                  |
|---------+---------------------------------->
 
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------|
  |
|
  |       To:       chris.ferris@sun.com
|
  |       cc:       David Fallside/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS, Henrik
Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>,              |
  |        w3c-xml-protocol-wg@w3.org
|
  |       Subject:  Re: Issue 101: Special status of body - isn't this
closed?                                          |
  |
|
  |
|
 
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------|



Speaking as the originator of the issue: +1, close it.  No further work
needed.  If I weren't traveling all of next week I would offer to do the
obvious thing and write the text closing it.  Two choices for our chair:
assign to someone else, or leave it until France and I'll do it while
we're there.  I'm already assigned one AI to work on with Henrik in the
next day and a half, and that's about what I can handle.  Thanks.

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







Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
Sent by: w3c-xml-protocol-wg-request@w3.org
02/13/2002 06:59 PM


        To:     Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
        cc:     David Fallside/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS,
w3c-xml-protocol-wg@w3.org
        Subject:        Re: Issue 101: Special status of body - isn't
this
closed?


Looked back through xmlp-comments and couldn't find email closing it,
but concur with Henrik that it has been addressed and could be closed.

Chris

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:

> Looking through the issues list, it occurs to me that issue 101 which 
> Noah initiated should be closed at the current time.
>
> * * * * *
>
> Title: Special status of body
>
> Description: SOAP Spec: 4.3.1 Relationship between SOAP Header and 
> Body [email] SOAP implies that Body is just syntactic sugar for a 
> header entry with no actor, but there is some implication that Body is

> the preferred way of carrying whichever request represents the primary

> function of the message. Some clarification may be useful. For 
> example, if multiple headers are sent to the default actor, is there 
> any defined processing order relative to the body? If a header calls 
> for "logging", for example, can it be processed after the body itself?
>
> See also the discussion between Doug and Hugo and its followup.
>
> Proposal: See the proposed solution and its revised version.
>
> * * * * *
>
> Is this a correct assessment?
>
> Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
> mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues#x101
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 18 February 2002 17:09:17 GMT

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