Re: Issue 221: Moving forward

OK.

Jean-Jacques.

noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> 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. 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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" 
> <www-archive@w3.org>
>         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."
> 
> 
> Henrik
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 24 September 2002 07:33:15 UTC