- From: <michael.mahan@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 10:56:35 -0700
- To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Satisfying an AI from last week to put to the list the final SC3 disposition. Last issue was resolved in last week's telecon with concurrence to Chris's last email. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Apr/0026.html >From the ML: chris: Had lengthy discussion, but concluded we were on same page but using different words. Key aspect of proposals was people misreading "envelope", "message", "response" etc. Original proposal read "start of response envelope" available. ... but "envelope" is just a property of the response message. All agree that whether envelope is present has nothing to do with when we start sending it. So change text from "response envelope" to "response". Here is the final disposition: ---------------------------------------------------------------- Issue: Does/can OutboundMessage abstraction handle the 202/204 case? Can an OutboundMessage have no envelope? Target: Table 7 - "Receiving" row Proposed edits/actions: From: '***Either a) Start of response envelope available in http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/OutboundMessage or b) indication from the application that no such envelope is to be send in the response.' To: 'Start of response available in http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/OutboundMessage.'
Received on Tuesday, 2 May 2006 17:57:42 UTC