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

RE: Issue 250 resolution

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 20:54:21 -0400
To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Cc: EUSNILM@am1.ericsson.se, henrikn@microsoft.com, marc.hadley@sun.com, moreau@crf.canon.fr, www-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFBA059201.B4EB1EDA-ON85256C2B.00043E0B@lotus.com>

Gudge writes:

>> In general I don't consider the text in issue 
>> resolutions to be prescriptive. We long ago 
>> decided that editors had the latitude to
>> incorporate as they saw fit.

Hmm.  I must say that as WG member that's real news to me.   I guess I've 
always taken resolutions at face value:  some mandate details including 
text, and some don't.   I expect the WG says what it means.  Certainly in 
schemas, if the resolution specifically said explicitly "change text A to 
text B" then we schema editors interpreted that as either it will be 
pretty much exactly B, or else we will warn the workgroup that we've taken 
some liberties and await a reading that it's within our discretion.   If 
the resolution said something less precise, then we assumed it was indeed 
as you suggest the editors' job to come up with wording, and that the 
resulting wording did not need explicit approval of the workgroup. 

Obviously, it's a bit late to discover this difference of interpretation, 
so I suppose there's not much to do but focus on the specifics of 
individual issues.  If there are any others in the post FTF batch  where 
the WG specifically suggested text, and you happen to remember that we did 
not use something quite close, I think it might be worthwhile to at least 
verify among ourselves that we've truly acted in the spirit of the WG. 
Again, I understand it's late, and to the extent this is impractical or a 
burden I'm prepared to skip it and move on   ( and I realize that even 
suggesting this is making the quite questionable presumption that my 
interpretation of the WG's intent is in some sense correct.)

Perhaps we should at least quietly alert David to the policy we've taken, 
to make sure that he understands.  Are you sure he's aware?  I'm a little 
concerned that we have sent resolutions to third parties saying 
essentially "the text will now read X, are you happy with this?", and then 
they'll find that the text does not in fact read X.  I suppose that's a 
bit how I felt on 250.

So, regarding 250:  yes, thanks for your understanding, I'll make the 
change (probably this evening). 

Again, thank you for your patience with this concern, which I'm sure comes 
across at best as a picky nuissance.  Please take no offense or concern at 
any confusion this misunderstanding might seem to cause.   We're all doing 
our best, and you (and some others) have certainly borne a major load on 
behalf of the WG, especially the last few weeks.

Thanks.  I hope you understand my concern in this area.

Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142

"Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
09/04/02 06:09 PM

        To:     <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
        cc:     "Nilo Mitra" <EUSNILM@am1.ericsson.se>, "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" 
<henrikn@microsoft.com>, "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, 
"Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "W3C Public Archive" 
        Subject:        RE: Issue 250 resolution


In general I don't consider the text in issue resolutions to be
prescriptive. We long ago decided that editors had the latitude to
incorporate as they saw fit.

With respect to 250 specifically, I can't remember exactly what my
thought process was, but it was probably along the lines of 'which have
special significance in a SOAP message' is redundant on the grounds that
if they weren't special we wouldn't put them in the spec. 

Or it's entirely possible I just wasn't paying attention.

If you want to add the text in then go ahead.


P.S. Adding the archive.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: 04 September 2002 22:31
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: Nilo Mitra; Henrik Frystyk Nielsen; Marc Hadley; Martin 
> Gudgin; Jean-Jacques Moreau
> Subject: Re: Issue 250 resolution
> Gudge:  I'm finally digging out from all the backed up review 
> work from 
> the summer and when I was sick, and I don't >think< what's in 
> the spec now 
> matches the resolution.  The resolution [1] says:
> The XML Protocol (XMLP) WG has decided at the f2f to close 
> issue 250 [1], which you originated, with the following 
> resolution. The text in Part 1, section 2.2
> <original text>
> This specification defines the following SOAP roles:
> .......
> With the exception of the three SOAP roles defined above..... 
> <original text>
> will be changed to
> <new text>
> This specification defines the following role names which 
> have special significance in a SOAP message (see ref. to 
> 6.2): ...... With the exception of the three SOAP role names 
> defined above..... <new text>
> But in fact the current text of the spec says:
> "This specification defines the following SOAP role names (see 2.6 
> Processing SOAP Messages):"
> Is there a reason not to stick to the text as approved in the 
> resolution? 
> The original concern in the issue is that we weren't really 
> "defining" 
> these roles (and I think there's also a literal interpretation of the 
> status quo text that these are the only roles allowed, though 
> it would 
> take a real pedant to infer that.)  Anyway, I like the 
> official resolution 
> better.  Any reason not to use it?   Sorry to take so long to 
> wade through 
> all these.
> [1] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2002Aug/0034.html
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
> 08/14/2002 12:04 PM
>         To:     "Noah Mendelson" 
> <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" 
> <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, 
> "Nilo Mitra" 
> <EUSNILM@am1.ericsson.se>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, 
> "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
>         cc: 
>         Subject:        Issue 250 resolution
> I've checked in the resolution to Issue 250, but I'm not 
> entirely comfortable with it. Could someone read Section 
> 2.2[1], 2.3[2] and 2.6[3] and let me know whether it all 
> hangs together. I've only made changes to 2.2 but 2.6 is 
> referenced from 2.2 now and 2.3 seems related too.
> Cheers
> Gudge
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part1.xml#soaproles
> [2] 
> http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part1.xml#targe
Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2002 20:55:45 UTC

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