- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 12:47:38 +0100
- To: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
- Cc: WS Description List <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, Asir Vedamuthu <asirv@webmethods.com>
+1 to the proposed changes. JJ. Glen Daniels wrote: > > Hey folks: > > I was writing up some text which we might consider putting in the > spec to account for issues LC29b [1] and LC18 [2] (I still don't > think this is really necessary but wanted to see what it might look > like anyway), and I noted the first sentence from section 2.6.1 of > Part 3 seems a little confusing: > > <text> In SOAP, it is permissible for specification interaction to > engage one or more additional features (typically implemented as one > or more SOAP header blocks), as defined by SOAP Modules (see [SOAP > 1.2 Part 1: Messaging Framework]). </text> > > I'd suggest replacing it with: > > <text> In SOAP, additional semantics such as security, reliability, > etc. may be engaged via SOAP headers. The combined rules and syntax > for such extensions are known as SOAP Modules (see [SOAP 1.2 Part 1: > Messaging Framework]). </text> > > and then here's some text we might add immediately thereafter: > > Note : although SOAP Modules may implement zero or more Features, > there is no syntactic relationship between the <soap:module> and > <wsdl:feature> elements. This is because the final arbiter of which > features a given module implements is the module specification itself > - any system supporting the module will inherently therefore know > which features are supported by virtue of the module's activation. > > Asir, others, what do you think? > > --Glen > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC29b [2] > http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC18 > >
Received on Friday, 3 December 2004 11:48:35 UTC