RE: Resolution of XMLP issue 107

I did reply positively to Marc's proposal.  However, I believe Issue 107
remains open until the wording for the definition of SOAP Application is
accepted by the WG.  I believe that Chris is currently working on a proposal
for this definition.

Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Hugo Haas [mailto:hugo@w3.org]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 2:17 PM
To: Eric Jenkins; Marc Hadley
Cc: David Fallside; www-archive@w3.org
Subject: Resolution of XMLP issue 107


Hi Eric and Marc.

I wanted to close issue 107[1], and I realized[2] that it was unclear
if everything has been done in order to close it.

The proposal states that the Working Group decided to:

  (i) change section 4.2, 3rd encoding rule to read "The SOAP actor
  attribute (see section 4.2.2) and SOAP mustUnderstand attribute (see
  section 4.2.3) MAY be used to indicate which SOAP module will
  process the SOAP header block, and how it will be processed (see
  section 4.2.1) respectively."

  (ii) add the following sentence to the end of section 4.2.2 "The
  processing rules regarding mustUnderstand and the generation of
  faults apply to all headers, whether the ACTOR is implicitly or
  explicitly defined, and whether or not the ACTOR value is
  user-created."

  (iii) add the following sentence to the end of the last paragraph in
  section 2.2 "There are no restrictions on the URIs that may be used
  as the value of an ACTOR attribute, other than those implied by the
  use of the special SOAP actor named
  "http://www.w3.org/2001/06/soap-envelope/actor/next".

(i) was done.

(ii) and (iii) were supposed to be done as part of the reconciliation
between section 2 and 4.2.2, and were marked as done during the August
1st[3] telcon:

  Change on issue 107 - change not needed because language is now gone
  - email will be sent to Eric Jenkins who proposed the clarification -

  Marc Hadley will do this

and the next week[4]:

  -- Marc Hadley to send an email to Eric Jenkins regarding the
  disapearance of the sentence referred to in issue 107
  Done.

I would like to know if Eric replied positively to this. The reason
why I am asking is because I couldn't find any acknowledgement from
Eric in the minutes, and that I couldn't find anything in the spec[5]
which was capturing (ii) -- note that I might have missed it.

Please let me know where we stand with this.

Thanks.

  1. http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x107
  2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Aug/0038.html
  3. http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/08/01-pminutes
  4. http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/08/08-pminutes
  5. http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/06/01/soap-02-infoset.html
-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/ - tel:+1-617-452-2092

Received on Monday, 27 August 2001 18:52:40 UTC