- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 16:23:41 -0400
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Henrik, On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 12:20:51PM -0700, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: > > The SOAP 1.2 editors intend to use the following proposed wording for > resolving the editorial issue 193 as replacement text for bullet 5 in > soap 1.2 part 1 [2]: > > In the case of a SOAP intermediary, and where the > SOAP message exchange pattern and results of > processing (e.g. no fault generated) require that > the SOAP message be sent further along the SOAP > message path, relay the message as described in > section 2.7 Relaying SOAP Messages. > > Any reason not to? We have to be careful not to violate R803 here, as we previously discussed in regards to issue 192. The SOAP core specification cannot know the "results of processing". One way to fix this would be to say; In the case of a SOAP intermediary, and where the SOAP message exchange pattern and results of processing (e.g. no fault generated, as determined by the underlying protocol binding in use on the incoming hop) require that the SOAP message be sent further along the SOAP message path, relay the message as described in section 2.7 Relaying SOAP Messages. MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Friday, 12 April 2002 16:17:31 UTC