- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 14:55:52 -0700
- To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
- Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>
Further resolutions: > -----Original Message----- > From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-desc- > comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 3:37 PM > To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > Subject: RE: WSDL 2.0 LC Comments > > > > ----- > > > Section 8.3 on Processor Conformance is untestable (unlike Section > > > 8.1). > > > Document conformance is adequate for a specification that defines > > > metadata rather than runtime processing. Remove section 8.3. > > > > The WG agreed with this issue (LC75v) [30], and has substantially > > reworked the definitions of conformance, including removing the > > definition of processor conformance. > > > > [30] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75v > > We are pleased with the improvement in this area. However, there are > still three instances of the term "conformant processor": in the > Abstract, in the Introduction, and in the third paragraph of Section 1.2 > Document Conformance. Please remove these remaining occurrences. Fixed. > > > Section 2.1.1 Fault Replaces Message and 2.1.2 Message Triggers > > Fault > > > don't allow a fault to go to an alternate location in the case where > > a > > > wsa:FaultTo [WS-Addressing] header is specified. Generalize these > > > rules > > > so that addressing mechanisms can be accommodated without defining > > new > > > MEPs. > > > > The WG agreed with this issue (LC76a) [34], and adding a clause to the > > fault rule set that says the destination of the fault may be modified > > by a binding or extension and to cite WSA as an informative example. > > > > [34] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC76a > > We see that text to allow dynamic redirection of faults was added to > Section 2.1 Fault Propagation Rules, but the specific rule definitions > in Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 still say "The fault message MUST be > delivered to...". Please make sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 more consistent. The WG agreed to make these more consistent as outlined in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2005Jul/0000 .html.
Received on Friday, 8 July 2005 21:56:42 UTC