- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 19:14:38 -0700
- To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Cc: "W3C Archive" <www-archive@w3.org>
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
Received on Sunday, 22 September 2002 22:15:10 UTC