RE: Issue 302 (Again)

I'd wait. 353 was classified editorial ( hence the text in the spec ),
302 was not. Resolving 302 might change the resolution of 353.

Gudge

> -----Original Message-----
> From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: 25 September 2002 09:48
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Issue 302 (Again)
> 
> 
> I'm (finally) writing the closing text on issue 353.  Was all 
> set to say 
> "we have both dangling inbound and outbound edges, and text has been 
> updated accordingly."  Gudge's suggestion below seems to 
> suggest a plan 
> where outbound only doesn't come up, but his note says: 
> 
> >> I also made a proposal for a different solution.
> >> That proposal, as amended by discussion on this 
> >> list, is repeated below:
> 
> So, I'm a little unclear if this is a proposal that's being actively 
> considered, is essential status quo, etc.  I don't actually 
> have a strong 
> feeling about the underlying design issue, but I note that my 
> closing of 
> this issue (which was presumed to be editorial) is due today. 
>  If I get a 
> clarifying answer before the call, I'll try and close the 
> issue. Otherwise 
> I'll slide the deadline a bit.
> 
> As I say, no big deal to me either way.  Once the group settles on a 
> formulation, I'll be glad to write the closing text and we'll 
> be done. 
> Thanks!
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
> Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
> 09/23/2002 08:38 PM
> 
>  
>         To:     <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
>         cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
>         Subject:        Issue 302 (Again)
> 
> 
> 
> I notice from the minutes that people think I have amended 
> the editor's copy of the spec with proposed resolutions to 
> issue 302[1]. This is not the case. A change I made when I 
> resolved EDITORIAL issue 353[2] also provided one solution to 
> 302. I also made a proposal for a different solution. That 
> proposal, as amended by discussion on this list, is repeated below:
> 
> 1.               Amend clause 4 of[3] to read:
> 
>                  Certain graphs may sometimes contain a given 
> edge and at 
> other
>                  times that edge will be missing. Such 
> missing edges can 
> either
> be
>                  omitted from the serialization or can be 
> encoded as an 
> element
>                  information item with an xsi:nil attribute 
> information 
> item
> whose value
>                  is "true". 
> 
> 2.    The above effectively covers ( or makes unnecessary ) the
> 'outbound only' case so we can amend the highlighted green 
> text in[4] to
> read: 
> 
>                  An edge MAY have only a terminating graph 
> node, that is 
> be
> inbound only.
> 
> Gudge
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x302
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x353
> [3] 
> http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part2.xml#compl
exenc
[4] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part2.xml#graphedges

Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2002 13:42:39 UTC