- 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