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

RE: Issue 189: closed

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:43:46 -0800
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D06DEDFA0@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: "Dear XMLP Comments" <xmlp-comments@w3.org>, "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org>

Noah, Jean-Jacques,

If I correctly recall, the WG had proposed a slightly different
resolution to this issue which is stated as part of the action item
associated with sending this notice. Unfortunately I can't refer to the
actual minutes of the meeting as these are not yet available but the
action item reads as follows:

   2002/03/20: JJM 
   Send closing text to xmlp-comments to close issue
   189 with mail [24] (including some possible editorial work) 

Where [24] references 


I don't think this semantically changes things but it may have an
editorial impact on how it is presented in the spec. [24] refers to
existing text in part 1, section "Relation to other XML Specifications".
As part of the resolution it was pointed out that the statement could be
improved editorially and on behalf of the editors I would be happy to
incorporate such suggestions.

Is this in accordance with the WG's understanding in general?

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen

>-----Original Message-----
>From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com] 
>Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 11:16
>To: Jean-Jacques Moreau
>Cc: Dear XMLP Comments; Yves Lafon
>Subject: Re: Issue 189: closed
>I am in agreement with the general direction signaled by this proposed 
>resolution, but I think some of the details need clarification. 
>Specifically, I think this question potentially arises both 
>with respect 
>to the envelope infoset, and with respect to XML 
>serializations that might 
>be sent by one or another binding.  The two are not completely 
>independent, but I think that both need to be covered.  
>Specifically, I 
>think that in the HTTP binding we need to describe any rules 
>regarding the 
>appearance of the XML declaration( <?xml  version=" " ?> in the HTTP 
>entity body of messages prepared for transmission.  Would the 
>correct rule 
>be "MAY be sent, MUST be accepted"?
>In the interest of moving forward, I would find it acceptable 
>for you to 
>close this issue immediately, and leave to the discretion of 
>the editors 
>the work needed to actually clarify the various parts of the 
>specification.  Thank you very much.
>Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
>IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
>One Rogers Street
>Cambridge, MA 02142
>"Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
>03/22/2002 04:01 AM
>        To:     Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
>        cc:     Dear XMLP Comments <xmlp-comments@w3.org>, 
>Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
>        Subject:        Issue 189: closed
>You raised an issue about what XML version number SOAP should
>specify [1]. The WG will close this issue with the following
>Enchance the description of the Envelope encoding to include
>discussion stating that the values of the [version], [character
>encoding scheme] and [standalone] infoset properties are
>unimportant as far as SOAP is concerned.
>Please respond to this message, cc'eing xmlp-comments, if you
>think this is an unacceptable resolution.
>[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x189
Received on Friday, 22 March 2002 14:43:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:16:58 UTC