- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 20:03:54 -0500
- To: Anish_Karamarkar@lotus.com
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Anish: you and I have an action to draft the edits to SOAP part 2 to show optionality of the response envelope. I did a bit of drafting tonight, and have a rough cut at the MEP section. I haven't touched the HTTP binding, but it should be straightforward. Since we have a call on Wed., I'm taking the risk of copying this note to everyone so people can start reading. Since the diff marking stuff in the stylesheets didn't seem usable (or I've forgotten how), I've just put "***" markers near everything I've changed. Search for them and you'll find pretty much everything I've done. As I say, this is rough and unproofread. I also didn't change all the "This version/latest version" URIs on the title page, as that would mean messing with the entities DTD, and I didn't want to touch that. I may or may not get to do more tomorrow. A few caveats: * I think the original neglected to say that received envelopes should be processed with the SOAP processing model. I've tentatively added that, but not very carefully just yet. Maybe it's already stated elsewhere. * I wasn't careful about hyperlinking terms like SOAP Processing model. If we decide to use this approach, we'll have to do that editing. Anyway, HTML is at [1], XML at [2]. BTW: though I've skimmed Dave Orchard's formulation, this shouldn't be taken as a direct response to details of that. This is just in fulfillment of the specific action item that Anish and I took. We can all compare the two approaches as we move forward. Noah [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part2OptRespMEP.html [2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part2OptRespMEP.xml -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2006 01:04:19 UTC