- From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 12:19:12 -0700
- To: "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>
- Cc: "W3C Public Archive" <www-archive@w3.org>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Nilo Mitra" <EUSNILM@am1.ericsson.se>, "Noah Mendelson" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Marc Hadley [mailto:marc.hadley@sun.com] > Sent: 23 September 2002 11:28 > To: Martin Gudgin > Cc: W3C Public Archive; Jean-Jacques Moreau; Nilo Mitra; Noah > Mendelson; Henrik Frystyk Nielsen > Subject: Re: Clean up of state tables > > > 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 ;-). OK. From what you say below, I think it was already broken, there was certainly inconsistency between the various tables in v 1.63. > 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). It seems to me that (ii) is probably easier and quicker for us as editors to implement. > > Marc.
Received on Monday, 23 September 2002 15:19:43 UTC