Reposting my comments about the following three action items. There are in
fact FOUR, not three action items. Issues/Status:
1. Generalize protocol headers. Pending
2. Actor URI/Issue 17. Done [1]
3. Dup 6q/Issue 32. Pleonasm.
4. Add issues. Done [2].
Jean-Jacques.
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jun/0190.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x63
Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> 4. Review of Action items.
> <snip/>
> 2002-06-20: Jean-J. Analyze whether WSD should gneralize a
> mechanism to provide protocol headers. This was
> discussed as part of 6d. Issue: SOAPAction2 #2
> actor URI in WSDL? #17
> <snip/>
> 2002-06-20: Issue Editor. Jean-J identifies dup issue: 6q. Issue:
> SOAP 1.1 backward compatibility support? #32 (Needs
> Clarification.)
> 2002-06-27: Issues list editors to look at the issues in Agenda
> item 9 and make sure that they are not duplicate and add them
> to issue list.
Forwarded message 1
Some comments regarding my action items.
Jean-Jacques.
Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> 2002-06-20: Jean-J. Analyze whether WSD should gneralize a
> mechanism to provide protocol headers. This was
> discussed as part of 6d. Issue: SOAPAction2
I think two different action items have inadvertantly been merged into one below.
First action item (above), pending.
> #2 actor URI in WSDL? #17
Second action item (above), done, and closed during this telcon.
> 2002-06-20: Issue Editor. Jean-J identifies dup issue: 6q. Issue:
> SOAP 1.1 backward compatibility support? #32 (Needs
> Clarification.)
This is confusing, but in the end I think there is no dup and a moot action item. Issue 6q in the agenda [1] was defined as:
"6q. Issue: SOAP 1.1 backward compatibility support? #32 [44]"
so it is indeed issue #32 in the issues list. No dup, just an agenda number for the same issue.
> 2002-06-27: Issues list editors to look at the issues in Agenda item 9
> and make sure that they are not duplicate and add them to
> issue list.
I have pointed out on IRC that:
* "Issue: Clarification of meaning of soap:operation/@style" is a dup of issue 33.
* "Issue: SOAP binding violates separation of abstract definitions and concrete bindings" has been added as a new issue (issue #63).