- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 15:04:53 +0200
- To: "Williams Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org, "'hugo@w3.org'" <hugo@w3.org>
Hi Stuart, Sorry for the late response. Comments interspersed below. Jean-Jacques. "Williams, Stuart" wrote: > 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? The latter, I think; but I don't want to put words in Hugo's -or WS-Arch's- mouth. > 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. I agree. > 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. I am please you did find some interesting material. > <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
Received on Thursday, 11 July 2002 09:05:46 UTC