RE: Arbitrary changes to processing model (was: editors on the hook for editorial issues)

I am not sure "arbitrary" is the right word as it might bring the reader
to think of "random" and I am not sure this is what we are talking
about. Would it be useful to expand the sentence in *...* to say:

"The SOAP extensibility model does not limit the extend to which SOAP
may be extended and does not prevent extensions from modifying the SOAP
processing model as described in section 2.6."

Does that work?

Henrik

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr] 
>Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 06:18
>To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
>Cc: Marc Hadley; Noah Mendelson; Martin Gudgin; W3C Public Archive
>Subject: Arbitrary changes to processing model (was: editors 
>on the hook for editorial issues)
>
>
>Ok... what about adding the following sentence (*quoted*):
>
>"MUST clearly and completely specify the content and semantics of 
>the header blocks used to implement the behavior in question, 
>including if appropriate any modifications to the SOAP Processing 
>model. *The SOAP Processing Model may be changed in arbitrary ways.*"
>
>We might wish to add a safety warning.
>
>What do you think?
>
>Jean-Jacques.
>
>Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
>> Thanks... Would description of examples of what one can do with 
>> features be primer stuff?
>> 
>> Henrik
>> 
>> 
>>>Here's a copy of my original message. Does it make sense?
>>>
>>>Jean-Jacques.
>>>
>>>Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
>>>
>>>>What's the issue with 280? Is it how we say that even though
>>>
>>>there are
>>>
>>>>practical limits we don't restrict the ways SOAP may be extended?
>>>>
>>>>Henrik
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Ok, I've done mine, except #280 for which I'm awaiting further
>>>>>>feedback.
>>>>>
>>>
>
>

Received on Sunday, 22 September 2002 13:35:17 UTC