- From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 15:45:41 -0400
- To: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
- CC: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
+1 Marc Hadley wrote: > +1, how about something along the lines of: > > "An ultimate SOAP receiver MUST correctly process the immediate > children of the SOAP body (see 5.3 SOAP Body). However, with the > exception of SOAP faults (see ....), part 1 of this specification > (this document) mandates no particular structure or interpretation > of these elements and provides no standard means for specifying > the processing to be done." > > Marc. > > Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: > >> With the recent acceptance of the resolution to issue 192 [1], I think >> we are in a good position to close issue 201 [2] as follows: We instruct >> the editors to add a reference in the text in section 2 [3] (see below) >> to point to the definition of a SOAP fault [4] as being the only type of >> body defined by the SOAP 1.2 specification. >> >> "An ultimate SOAP receiver MUST correctly process the immediate children >> of the SOAP body (see 5.3 SOAP Body). However, Part 1 of this >> specification (this document) mandates no particular structure or >> interpretation of these elements, and provides no standard means for >> specifying the processing to be done." >> >> Comments? >> >> Henrik Frystyk Nielsen >> mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com >> >> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2002Apr/0021.html >> [2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x201 >> [3] >> http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/04/11/soap12-part1-1.86.html#structint >> erpbodies >> [4] >> http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/04/11/soap12-part1-1.86.html#soapfault >> > >
Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 15:47:03 UTC