Re: HTTP binding mismatch and identification missing

Hi Asir.

* Asir Vedamuthu <asirv@webmethods.com> [2004-07-21 08:23-0400]
> > Does everybody agree before I start making 
> > lots of changes in the Part 3?
> 
> +1 to these changes. I have the same set of issues in my notes. I did not
> post them because I wasn't sure if part 3 was ready for WG review. BTW, when
> will part 3 be ready for WG review?

Once we get the go ahead from the WG — or from the chair since it
seems to be an editorial mistake to me — about this mismatch, we can
fix it, add http:faultSerialization and the HTTP fault code, and we
should be caught up.

We will still have on the Part 3 editorial to-do list:
- 226: see [2].
- Accept header: see [3].
- MEP applying to the binding: see [4].

Note that the links all are proposals, so we could dispose of them
rapidly, and with the current proposal, they should be editorially
easy to fix.

So I would say about 1 day of editing work.

> One additional item is,
> Component property names: I prefer
> {http location} instead of {location}
> {http cookies} instead of {cookies}
> ...

Fixed: all HTTP properties are now named {http ...}. Fixed also an
inconsistency between {soap fault code} and {fault code} while I was
at it.

Also, I noticed that transfer coding is missing from the input/output
messages. It needs to be added. Waiting for go-ahead about mismatch
for this too.

Regards,

Hugo

  2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0287.html
  3. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0262.html
  4. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0279.html
-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/