[Sorry if this is a repeat message. I sent it to this mailing list before I subscribed, and fear that it didn't get through because I wasn't a subscriber when I sent it.] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Simon Kissane <skissane@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:10:25 +1100 Subject: Suggested Minor Errata for "Resource Representation SOAP Header Block" http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PR-soap12-rep-20041116/ To: xml-dist-app@w3.org Hi, My interpretation of the "Resource Representation SOAP Header Block" is that section 4.3.3 is non-normative, which I believe is the interpretation everyone would agree with. However, the first time I read it, I formed the impression that the "HTTP resolver" functionality in it was some form of optional part of the specification. I might suggest, that to avoid any such impression being formed in the minds of a less than careful reader, that the section be moved to an appendix and clearly marked as "NON-NORMATIVE". (At first, I read the wording "Extension example:" to mean, not that this section is non-normative, but that this part of the specification is an example of the power of the extensibility mechanisms in the specification.) Also, I could not find a public comment email address, or editors email addresses, for this specification, so I am reporting it here. Is this the right place? I would suggest that every recommendation should clearly identify in its introduction how errata or other such issues are to be raised. Cheers Simon KissaneReceived on Wednesday, 26 January 2005 21:49:55 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:12:05 UTC