- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
- Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 11:14:39 +0200
- To: Katy Warr <katy_warr@uk.ibm.com>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>, public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org
Katy, I'd like to register my disagreement with this resolution. I recognize that the reason element is mandatory in faults, but this does not mean that WS-Addressing needs to mandate what exactly it will be as it is only a human-oriented informative string. For analogy, please note that HTTP also mandates a reason string in replies but the spec does not mandate what that string is going to be. For 200 the usual is "OK", but an implementation may choose "success" instead, or use a different language. Therefore I propose that WS-Addressing only suggests what the reason element could contain, perhaps noting that the presence of the reason element is in fact mandatory in both SOAPs. This way, the content of the reason element would not be a WS-Addressing conformance consideration. Best regards, Jacek On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 08:53 +0100, Katy Warr wrote: > > Jacek > > The WS-A WG decided on 23/05/05 that your issue Lc71 will be closed > with no change to the optionality of the reason element because this > element is mandatory in both SOAP 1.1 and 1.2. However, some > editorial cleanup will be done as a result of this discussion. > > regards > Katy Warr > (on behalf of WS-Addressing Working Group)
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2005 15:58:56 UTC