W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > September 2002

RE: Issue 221: Moving forward

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 18:06:36 -0400
To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "W3C Archive" <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF975485BE.CFCDBF7D-ON85256C3D.00784EF5@lotus.com>

Fine with me.  It was always my my understanding that the following was 
offered for exactly the purpose to which we're about to apply it:  I.e. as 
the editors' embodiment of the F2F decision.  So, I'm happy to proceed 
with this.   I think the earlier concerns may have come from Jean-Jacques 
and/or Gudge.  If they're  OK, I'd say we send a note to the WG indicating 
something along the lines of:

"We editors were asked to implement the F2F decision on 221.  For some 
time we had trouble getting concensus among the editors and accordingly 
picked up a to do to offer alternatives to the WG.  The editors have no in 
fact reached concensus on the following text.  Accordingly, since the only 
reason for consulting the WG was to get their assistance in gaining 
concensus. we are checking in this text and closing the issue in our list. 
 If this is not acceptable, please alert us ASAP (and of course, we can 
always revert the text if necessary.)

That way we can just do it and move on, I think. 


Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142

"Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
09/23/2002 12:19 PM

        To:     "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>
        cc:     <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, 
"Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "W3C Archive" 
        Subject:        RE: Issue 221: Moving forward

From an editorial POW, I am fine with this reformulation and if we all
think this is within the realm of editorial discretion then we should
just do it.

>"SOAP messages sent by initial SOAP senders MUST NOT contain 
>processing instruction information items. SOAP intermediaries 
>MUST NOT insert 
>processing instruction information items in SOAP messages they 
>relay. SOAP receivers receiving a SOAP message containing a 
>processing instruction information item SHOULD generate a SOAP 
>fault with the Value of Code set to "env:Sender". However, in 
>the case where performance considerations make it impractical 
>for an intermediary to detect processing instruction 
>information items in a message to be relayed, such 
>intermediaries MAY leave the processing instruction 
>information items unchanged in the relayed message."

Received on Monday, 23 September 2002 17:59:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:31:53 UTC