Issue 221: Moving forward

On the issue of issue 221 on PIs [1], I started writing up the four
possible solutions that have been brought up in the editors' discussion
to date. The list was a result of discussion with Noah and Gudge and
generally an output of the various email threads. 

However, looking through the discussion threads, the WG resolution
agreed upon the following resolution [2] on Sep 4 which happened as a
result of a call for clarification of the initial resolution coming out
of the f2f:

* * * * *

Except in the special case of intermediaries (see below), envelopes
transmitted by SOAP senders MUST NOT contain PIs.

Receivers (including intermediaries)  receiving an envelope with a PI
SHOULD fault with a Sender fault. However, in the case where performance
considerations make it impractical for an intermediary to detect PIs in
a message to be relayed, such intermediaries MAY leave the PIs unchanged
in the relayed message.

* * * * *

Given that nobody has raised WG objections to this resolution, I am at a
loss as to why we as editors don't just incorporate the resolution. At
this point in time, if either of us can't live with the resolution then
we should raise an objection at the WG level but this would be outside
the scope of our editorial role.

Any reason not just to use the text above?

Henrik

[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x221
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2002Sep/0016.html