RE: LC #220 (was RE: Raw minutes of 10 July 2002)

During discussion of this issue on today's telcon I picked up an action item
to propose some rewording of the two extract at [1] and [2] below.

Proposed insertions highlighted with >>...<< and a <strikeout> around the
spliting of a long sentence into to.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part1-20020626/#soapfeature
2nd to last sentence of last paragraph states:

<original>
A binding specification that expresses such features external to the SOAP
envelope needs to define its own processing rules to which a SOAP node is
expected to conform (for example, describing what information is passed
along with the SOAP message as it leaves the intermediary).
</original>

<proposal>
A binding specification that expresses such features external to the SOAP
envelope needs to define its own processing rules >>for those externally
expressed features.<< <strikeout>to which a</stikeout> >>A<< SOAP node is
expected to conform >>to these processing rules<< (for example, describing
what information is passed along with the SOAP message as it leaves the
intermediary). >>A binding specification MUST NOT specify any variation to
the SOAP processing model (see 2. SOAP Processing Model).<<
</proposal>

[I'm not entirely convinced that we need the last insert forbidding a
binding specifying a variation of SOAP processing. Or maybe I have not
caught what was suggested on the call correctly.]


[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part1-20020626/#transpbindframew
Last paragraph states:
<original>
A binding does not provide a separate processing model and does not
constitute a SOAP node by itself. Rather a SOAP binding is an integral part
of a SOAP node (see 2. SOAP Processing Model).
</original>

<proposal>
A binding does not provide a separate processing model >>for the SOAP
Envelope<< and does not constitute a SOAP node by itself. Rather a SOAP
binding is an integral part of a SOAP node (see 2. SOAP Processing Model).
</proposal>

The first suggestion [1] might benefit form a little more tweaking...

Best regards

Stuart
--
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Williams, Stuart 
> Sent: 11 July 2002 12:30
> To: 'Jean-Jacques Moreau'
> Cc: w3c-xml-protocol-wg@w3.org
> Subject: LC #220 (was RE: Raw minutes of 10 July 2002)
> 
> 
> > 220
> > 
> > DavidO: Don't understand the issue.
> > MarcH: Agree.
> > DavidO: Wait for Stuart.
> > 
> > Postponed. Wait for Stuart.
> 
> Another comment arising from a pre LC review.
> 
> Simply stated: One part of the document [1] states that a 
> binding specification does "define its own processing rules 
> [for features expressed external to the SOAP envelope] to 
> which a SOAP nodes is expected to conform."; While another 
> part of the document [2] states that "a binding does *not* 
> provide a separate processing model...".
> 
> Taken together, the meaning of [1] and [2] is at best not 
> clear, and at worst contradictory. There may be subtle 
> differences the use of terms like "processing rules" and 
> "processing model".
> 
> I don't have a fix to offer, because I know what the text is 
> trying to tell me.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Stuart
> --
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part1-20020626/#soapfeature
> 2nd to last sentence of last paragraph states:
> "A binding specification that expresses such features 
> external to the SOAP envelope needs to define its own 
> processing rules to which a SOAP node is expected to conform 
> (for example, describing what information is passed along 
> with the SOAP message as it leaves the intermediary)."
> 
> [2] 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part1-20020626/#transpbindframew
Last paragraph states:
"A binding does not provide a separate processing model and does not
constitute a SOAP node by itself. Rather a SOAP binding is an integral part
of a SOAP node (see 2. SOAP Processing Model)."

Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2002 17:47:28 UTC