- From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 13:48:48 -0400
- To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "'hugo@w3.org'" <hugo@w3.org>, "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, www-tag@w3.org, www-tag-request@w3.org
Stuart, As you surmise, Hugo's comments are part of the process by which WSAWG is formulating its response to XMLP for the LC SOAP specs. Cheers, Chris "Williams, Stuart" To: "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Ian B. Jacobs" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp. <ij@w3.org> com> cc: www-tag@w3.org, "'hugo@w3.org'" <hugo@w3.org> Sent by: Subject: RE: [Minutes] 1 July TAG teleconf (SOAP last call, xlinkScope-23, www-tag-request@w Arch Doc and httpRange-14) 3.org 07/05/2002 12:38 PM Hi Jean-Jacques, I've taken a look at the messages you reference from Hugo. Has he submitted them to xmlp-comments yet or is this part of the process of ws-arch formulating it's response to the last call on SOAP 1.2? I think the proper place for discussion of these comments in the first instance is the XMLP-WG as part of the process of addressing Last Call comments. The TAG has invited the XMLP WG to draw the TAG's attention to matters of Web Architecture [1]. Of the comments that Hugo makes the following, from [2], may be of interest to the TAG. <quote> 5) Comment: QName vs URI Sections 5.4.1.3[4] and 5.4.6[5] use and define QNames to identify fault types, whereas AR009.3 calls for URIs. This is related to two open TAG issues: - Using Qualified Names (QNames) as Identifiers in Content[6]. - Algorithm for creating a URI from a QName[7]. We should probably point this out. ... 4. http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part1-20020626/#faultsubvalueelem 5. http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part1-20020626/#faultcodes </quote> However, I assume AR009.3 is a requirement from ws-arch and might also properly be the subject of discussion within the Web Services activity. Best regards Stuart Williams [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2002Jul/0011.html (member only). [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Jul/0019.html -- > -----Original Message----- > From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr] > Sent: 04 July 2002 15:45 > To: Williams Stuart; Ian B. Jacobs; www-tag@w3.org > Subject: Re: [Minutes] 1 July TAG teleconf (SOAP last call, > xlinkScope-23, Arch Doc and httpRange-14) > > > Just in case, here is a further message[1] from Hugo. > > Jean-Jacques. > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Jul/0057.html > > Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote: > > > Stuart, you may be interested in Hugo's review[1,2] of SOAP 1.2. > > > > Jean-Jacques. > > > > [1] > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Jul/0019.html > > > > [2] > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Jul/0020.html > > > > "Ian B. Jacobs" wrote: > > > > > ------------------------------------------ > > > 2.1 Review SOAP in last call? > > > ------------------------------------------ > > > > > > SW: The XMLP WG has asked the TAG whether they will > > > review the SOAP 1.0 specification in last call. > > > > > > RF, SW: SOAP 1.2 is not sufficiently architectural in > > > scope (in the way the CharMod spec was). > > > > > > Resolved: The TAG does not intend to commit to a > > > complete review of the last call document. The XMLP WG > > > should indicate whether there is a particular issue > > > having architectural scope they want us to look at. > > > > > > Action SW: Respond to XMLP WG on behalf of TAG. >
Received on Friday, 5 July 2002 13:54:45 UTC