Re: Proposal for closing issue 201

+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
> >
>
> --
> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
> XML Technology Centre, Sun Microsystems.

Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2002 04:15:07 UTC