- From: Roland Merrick <roland_merrick@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:19:09 +0100
- To: public-soap-jms@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF94E3BFE3.739E3E3B-ON80257472.005E653C-80257472.005F23E1@uk.ibm.com>
Greetings, during todays call we failed to get through all the "Content questions" [1] raised by Peter and Eric. The follwing still need some resolution: Section 2.2.3: contentType - Do we need to add statements requiring minimal support for various flavors of XML, or require that vendors support specific encodings? Section 2.2.3: We define a "requestIRI" property. Do we want to change this to a requestURI property, but allow users to put an IRI in the contents? This will have a cascade effect in other places.... Interesting question, where do we actually allow IRIs and when are they converted to URIs. Section 2.2.4: Definition of fault codes with "IRI" in the name - do we want to change them to use URI? I would certainly say YES, change to URI. I certainly hope this is the case as Bhakti already changed to URI as part of the "universal" switchover. Section 2.7.2: If this is untestable, should we be specifying it? [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2008Jun/att-0015/00-part Regards, Roland Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2008 17:19:50 UTC