Re: (Mostly) Editorial edits of SOAP 1.2 spec

Done

Gudge

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>
To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>; "Marc Hadley"
<marc.hadley@sun.com>; "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>; "David
Fallside (E-mail)" <fallside@us.ibm.com>; "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 6:27 AM
Subject: Re: (Mostly) Editorial edits of SOAP 1.2 spec


* Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com> [2001-06-27 16:59-0700]
> >Section 1.2, SOAP Nodes
> >
> >     For consistency with the rest of the spec, I suggest:
> >
> >     "A SOAP node can be the intial SOAP sender, the ultimate
> >     SOAP receiver, or a SOAP intermediary, in which case it is
> >     both a SOAP sender or a SOAP receiver. Although SOAP does
> >     not provide its own routing mechanism, SOAP messages are
> >     supposed to be transported from an initial SOAP sender to an
> >     ultimate SOAP receiver, via zero or more SOAP
> >     intermediaries."
>
> I chose:

A foreigners fight on English grammar: :-)

Shouldn't this be:

> "A SOAP node can be the initial SOAP sender, the ultimate SOAP
receiver,
> or a SOAP intermediary, in which case it is both a SOAP sender or a
SOAP
^^
and
> receiver. Although SOAP does not provide its own routing mechanism,
SOAP
> contains the notion that a SOAP message is initiated by an initial
SOAP
> sender and exchanged to an ultimate SOAP receiver, via zero or more
SOAP
> intermediaries."

--
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/ -
tel:+1-617-452-2092

Received on Friday, 29 June 2001 02:11:43 UTC