- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 14:25:19 -0400
- To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Martin Gudgin writes:
>> I'd wait. ... Resolving 302 might change the resolution of 353.
Glad I checked...that's what I inferred from your note. I think this
gives me plausible deniability for blowing the deadline on closing the
issue. 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>
09/25/2002 01:41 PM
To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Subject: 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 14:27:20 UTC