- From: Simon Kissane <skissane@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 08:49:23 +1100
- To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
[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 Kissane
Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2005 21:49:55 UTC