W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > September 2002

FW: Proposals for remaining editorial spec issues

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 19:13:27 -0700
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D08618274@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-archive@w3.org>


-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr] 
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 01:31
To: Martin Gudgin
Cc: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen; Marc Hadley; noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com;
Nilo Mitra; W3C Archive
Subject: Re: Proposals for remaining editorial spec issues

In general, I concur with Gudge's +1's. Further comments below.


Martin Gudgin wrote:

> > 284 [14]
> >
> > Remove "binding-specific" in part 2, section 4. There is no reason 
> > that this address should be binding specific in any way. The SOAP 
> > RPC representation is completely independent of this.
> Ok with me, what do the other editor's think?

On reflection, I also think we should remove "binding-specific". (Why
should the RPC mechanism have intimate knowledge of the binding used?)

> > 289 [5]
> >
> > No action. Reason is that we don't say anything about how the 
> > forwarding feature is defined for any SOAP messages other than 
> > stating that it is a feature. This also apply to SOAP faults--they 
> > are just a certain type of SOAP messages.
> Hmmm, I think people may have different expectation here, but I can 
> live with no action.

See my earlier email today. To recap, I think we should add an extra
sentence or two reemphasing the fact that this is all up to each
routing/forwarding feature definition.
Received on Monday, 2 September 2002 22:13:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:31:53 UTC