- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 10:45:54 +0200
- To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- CC: www-ws-desc@w3.org
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).
Received on Friday, 28 June 2002 04:46:29 UTC