RE: Freshly updated draft of part1 (was: Re: Overloading [was RE: Minutes, 27 June 2002 Web Service Description Telcon])

That sounds fine too me.

Gudge

-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr] 
Sent: 28 June 2002 13:24
To: Sanjiva Weerawarana
Cc: Jonathan Marsh; www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: Re: Freshly updated draft of part1 (was: Re: Overloading [was
RE: Minutes, 27 June 2002 Web Service Description Telcon])



Just added the following ednote. How does this sound?  --JJ

      <ednote>
        <name>JJM</name>
        <date>20020628</date>
        <edtext>This document is out of synch with Part 1.
        A number of changes have been made recently to Part 1
        which are not yet reflected in this document. The WG
        is aware of this problem and expects to synchronise
        Part 1 and Part 2 at a later date. More generally,
        the sections in this document have hardly changed
        from the corresponding sections in WSDL 1.1. This
        may not be the case in a future revision.
        In particular, the WG anticipates
        that the SOAP section may change significantly
        as a result of supporting SOAP 1.2.
        </edtext>
      </ednote>

Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:

> JJM: Please remember to put an ed-note on the part2 doc saying it 
> needs to be updated for this case too. (If you have one overall one 
> saying the part2 doc may not be fully up-to-date yet that's fine.) In 
> some sense the getting overall feedback on part1 is most critical at 
> this stage as we can adapt part2 to fit accordingly later ..

Received on Friday, 28 June 2002 12:10:49 UTC