- From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 06:47:15 -0700
- To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Cc: "W3C Public Archive" <www-archive@w3.org>, "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "Nilo Mitra" <EUSNILM@am1.ericsson.se>, "Noah Mendelson" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Can we get the outstanding resolutions in before we start questioning the existing resolutions. We will all need to re-read the spec and catch this kind of thing but I'd rather do it AFTER we've done the work. We have a deadline of Sept 3rd. Gudge > -----Original Message----- > From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen > Sent: 21 August 2002 19:55 > To: Martin Gudgin; 'Jean-Jacques Moreau' > Cc: 'W3C Public Archive'; 'Marc Hadley'; 'Nilo Mitra'; 'Noah > Mendelson' > Subject: RE: Edtodo is now uptodate > > > > Getting up to speed - just looking at part 1 and 2 and noted > a few nits--otherwise looks great: > > * In the inserted paragraph in section 3.1: > > "The term 'SOAP Module' refers to the set of syntax and > semantics associated with implementing a particular feature > (see 3.1 SOAP Features) as SOAP headers. A Module is > described in a Module Specification, which adheres to the > following rules. It:" > > It uses the term "SOAP header". I think we should be careful > and use "SOAP header blocks" as otherwise people get confused > as to whether we mean *the* SOAP header or blocks. If you are > ok then I can fix this. > > * I don't understand the paragraph in section 3.2: > > "MUST, if* the Module implements a Feature which has already > been defined elsewhere, clearly refer to that Feature's URI. > Note that a Module may EITHER explicitly refer to a separate > Feature in this way OR may implicitly define a Feature simply > by describing the semantics of the Module." > > Is that a cut&paste error? > > * In section 5.4.5, in the inserted paragraph: > > "The Detail element information item MAY be present in a SOAP > fault in which case it carries additional information > relative to the SOAP fault codes describing the fault (see > 5.4.6 SOAP Fault Codes). For example, the Detail element > information item might contain information about a message > not containing the proper credentials, a timeout, etc. The > presence of the Detail element information item has no > significance as to which parts of the faulty SOAP message > were processed." > > I think the last sentence easily can be misread to say that a > detail element says nothing about whether parts of the > message processing succeeded and parts failed. However, we > know that a SOAP fault is for the whole message and not parts > of the message. What I think we want to say is this: > > "The presence of the Detail element information item has no > significance as to which parts of the faulty SOAP message > failed during processing." > > Thanks! > > Henrik >
Received on Thursday, 22 August 2002 09:47:48 UTC