RE: AI 96/Issue 7206: addition to generic extensibility section that advises on the use of response extensions

I like to suggest a minor revision the proposed text. The changes relative to the existing wording in the specifications is highlighted below:. Thanks.

The elements defined in this specification MAY be extended at the points indicated by their outlines and schema. Implementations MAY add child elements and/or attributes at the
indicated extension points but MUST NOT contradict the semantics of the parent and/or owner, respectively. If a receiver does not recognize an extension, the receiver SHOULD
ignore that extension. Senders MAY indicate the presence of an extension that has to be understood through the use of a corresponding SOAP Header with a soap:mustUnderstand
attribute with the value "1". In cases where it is either desirable or necessary for the receiver of a request that has been extended to indicate that it has recognized and accepted the semantics associated with that extension, it is recommended that the receiver add a corresponding extension to the response message.  The definition of an extension should clearly specify how the extension that appears in the response correlates with that in the corresponding request.

From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gilbert Pilz
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 2:46 PM
To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject: AI 96/Issue 7206: addition to generic extensibility section that advises on the use of response extensions

Attached is our generic "Considerations on the Use of Extensibility Points" section with an additional sentence that advises on the use of a response extensions to indicate recognition and acceptance of request extensions.

- gp