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

The problem I see with your wording is that people will think that 2.6
tells them how to modify SOAP processing model. How about:

The SOAP extensibility model does not limit the extent to which SOAP can
be extended. Nor does it prevent extensions from modifying the SOAP
processing model from that described in Section 2.6

Gudge

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen 
> Sent: 22 September 2002 10:35
> To: 'Jean-Jacques Moreau'
> Cc: Marc Hadley; Noah Mendelson; Martin Gudgin; W3C Public Archive
> Subject: 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 20:23:55 UTC