Closing XML Protocol LC issue 278: Part 1 - editorial

Martin,

The XML Protocol WG has decided to close issue 278 [1] raised by you by
applying your proposed changes as follows:

>Example 1 (nit): The message should probably expire a bit 
>later, to avoid that it's never seen because the receiver 
>didn't have time at the right moment.

Example 1 has NOT been changed. The point is that if the message is not
processed before 2pm then it's too late.

>2.6: "at-most one fault" -> "at most one fault"

done

>2.7.1: Re-inserting ... emphasizes the need to process them at 
>each soap node ...: weird wording. Maybe: Processing is 
>defined here in terms of reinserting (rather than leaving 
>things in place) to emphasize the need ....

Now says: "Processing is defined here in terms of re-inserting header
blocks (rather than leaving them in place) to emphasize the need to
process them at each SOAP node along the SOAP message path."

>5.2.3: "MAY be omitted if its value would have been ...": 
>another example of 'would'.

Now says: "A SOAP intermediary MAY omit the SOAP mustUnderstand
attribute information item if its value is "false"

>5.3.1: Please add: "* May have any number of element or 
>attribute children." It would be strange if body child 
>elements had to be CDATA only.

done

>7.1 ed: side affects -> side effects

done

>7.3.1 ed: 'associated that protoco': 'with' missing.

done

If you cannot accept this resolution then please send your concerns to
the xml-dist-app@w3.org mailing list [2] indicating the issue number of
the issue in the subject.

Thanks,

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen 
mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com 

[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x278
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/

Received on Monday, 16 September 2002 12:15:30 UTC