- From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 12:58:15 -0400
- To: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
- Cc: xmlp-comments@w3.org
Hi Marc. * Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com> [2002-07-18 16:53+0100] > Issue 229[1], which you raised, was discussed by the XMLP WG and > the resolution suggested in [2] was adopted. Please let us know if > this is not satisfactory. [..] > [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x229 > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Jul/0109.html Your proposed wording does lift the ambiguity. One comment though: you went from "A SOAP node MAY choose to ignore [..] non-mandatory SOAP header blocks targeted at it" to "A SOAP node MAY also choose to process non-mandatory SOAP header blocks targeted at it". I think that the expectations of people is to have headers processed, even though they may be ignored if they are not marked as mandatory. This is related I think to the discussion about issue 232[3]. The use of "choose" sounds to me like the SOAP node may act as it pleases it. With a default env:mustUnderstand being true, this is fine, but if the Working Group replies negatively to issue 232, then I will be more comfortable if "also choose to" was removed. So I think that we can indeed consider issue 229 closed, and I will keep my other comments for the resolution of issue 232. Thank you. Regards, Hugo 3. http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x232 -- Hugo Haas - W3C mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/ - tel:+1-617-452-2092
Received on Thursday, 18 July 2002 12:58:17 UTC