Re: LC Issue 250: closed, editorial: text changed

Joseph:  I think your concerns are essentially with the issue resolution 
adopted by the WG, and not primarily with the minor wording changed 
introduced by my editing of that result.  Accordingly, I think that 
consideration of your concerns is beyond what I can undertake 
independently as an editor, and I have asked the WG to advise on how they 
would like to respond to your remaining unease with the specification. 
Obviously, we will let you know when any further decisions are reached. 
Thank you.

Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142

Joseph Reagle <>
09/09/2002 03:09 PM
Please respond to reagle

        To:, "''" 
        cc:     "Hoelzing, Gerd" <>,
        Subject:        Re: LC Issue 250: closed, editorial: text changed

I'm not sure if my question has been answered. I'm looking at [3] and the 
text reads, "Each SOAP intermediary and the ultimate SOAP receiver MUST 
in this role and MAY additionally assume zero or more other SOAP roles." I 

think the change is that this is supposed to be a definition of the "role 
name" instead of the (previous) "role". But it still doesn't seem that 
useful a definition to me unless the definition of the NEXT role is that 
it's the thing which all SOAP nodes are. However, I suspect the difficulty 

here is that there's not a specific location in the specification that 
defines what a NEXT agent does, instead it's distributed throughout the 

On Wednesday 04 September 2002 10:27 pm, wrote:
> If the members of the WG believe this does not reflect the intended
> resolution, please let the editors know ASAP.  xmlp-comments should be
> deleted from the distribution of any replies to this note.  Thank you.
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]

Received on Monday, 9 September 2002 15:44:28 UTC