On Sunday, Sep 22, 2002, at 20:49 US/Eastern, Martin Gudgin wrote: > > I cleaned up stuff regarding URIs for property values. > > Made sure all URIs that function as bases URIs have trailing > Changed several occurences of soap/mep/request-response so > soap/mep/soap-response in section 6.3 > > If someone could cast an eye over it and make sure I didn't break > anything... > Its broken, but I don't think you necessarily broke it ;-). The problem is the use of two different state machines in 6.2 and 6.3 that share the same relative names (e.g. Sending+Receiving) but now have four different base URIs: http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap/mep/request-response/RequestingSOAPNode/ http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap/mep/request-response/RespondingSOAPNode/ http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap/mep/soap-response/RequestingSOAPNode/ http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap/mep/soap-response/RespondingSOAPNode/) The main problem with this is that the HTTP binding text tries to describe support for both request-response and soap-response in the same place (section 7.5) by only referring to the relative state names. This was OK before we made the state names absolute since Sending+Receiving was effectively one state shared by both state machines. Yhat was why I left the value of reqres:Role in table 9 unchanged in my original edit - to make both state machines share the same state names. I think we have two options: (i) rethink the base URI for the states such that they are shared by both request-response and soap-response - or - (ii) Split section 7.5 into two, one for each state machine. I'd prefer (i) but LC issue 305 might push our choice to (ii). Marc. > I also removed generics. > > Gudge > > -- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com> XML Technology Center, Sun Microsystems.Received on Monday, 23 September 2002 14:28:39 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:31:53 UTC