- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 13:55:45 +0100
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- CC: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Marc Hadley <mark.hadley@Sun.COM>, www-archive@w3.org
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: > Given the success of the table describing mU and role I was wondering > whether we can clarify issue 250 by adding another one listing the roles > in a similar manner (see attached) in section 2.2 where we have the list > of role definitions [1]. This may make it easier to see than the current > bullet list. Sounds good. Done. > Btw, in table 2 "SOAP Nodes Forwarding behaviour", we should refer to > the names "next", "ultimateReceiver", and "none" as *short-names* as we > in section 2.2 defined the role *name* as a URI. Sounds good as well. Done. > Comments? > > Henrik Frystyk Nielsen > mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part1.xml#soaproles > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Table X: SOAP roles defined by this specification Short-name Name > Description > next "http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope/role/next" Each SOAP > intermediary and the ultimate SOAP receiver MUST act in this role. > none "http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope/role/none" SOAP nodes MUST > NOT act in this role. > ultimateReceiver > "http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope/role/ultimateReceiver" To > establish itself as an ultimate SOAP receiver a SOAP node MUST act in > this role. SOAP intermediaries MUST NOT act in this role >
Received on Tuesday, 5 November 2002 07:56:32 UTC