RE: Snapshots of the drafts for review

from a quick read, i'm happy with these, apart from section 2.3
which stands out like a sore thumb. i'll raise a separate Email.

two editorial comments (not required for this publication):

- i thought we'd agreed at the F2F to reference RFC3986 rather 
  than RFC2396bis?

- it might be nice to populate the non-normative Acknowledgements
  for those of us in need of a small ego boost :-)

Paul


-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Hugo Haas
Sent: 28 January 2005 10:05
To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject: Snapshots of the drafts for review


WG members,

As discussed on this week's call, please find below links to snapshots
of the drafts that we will consider for republication:

    Core
 
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2004/ws/addressing/ws-addr-core.html
?rev=1.12

    SOAP binding
 
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2004/ws/addressing/ws-addr-soap.html
?rev=1.11

    WSDL binding
 
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2004/ws/addressing/ws-addr-wsdl.html
?rev=1.11

When we agree to publish those, I'll work on pubrules-compliant copies
and give them to the Webmaster team.

[ Even though I don't see an action item on me to do so, I remember
  being asked to regenerate the drafts and send out such an email. ]

Cheers,

Hugo

-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/

Received on Friday, 28 January 2005 14:53:16 UTC