OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ws-tx message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [ws-tx] NEW Issue (Errata): Update WS-Policy reference description



>Ian Robinson wrote: Monica,
>The TC has committed (through charter clarification) to issue an updated 
>version of the TX specs with normative references to WS-Policy 1.5 once 
>the latter becomes a REC. The TX 1.1 specs refers to WS-Policy 1.2. I 
>believe Ram's issue is simply to clarify that the TX 1.1 reference is 
>specifically to WS-Policy 1.2 rather than the earlier Sep 2004 draft of 
>WS-Policy (somethines referred to as WS-Policy 1.1) which is also 
>referenced by the RDDL document at 
>http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/09/policy/.
>
>Regards,
>Ian Robinson
>  
>
mm1: I understand that Ian and thanks. My point is you have the same 
condition by referencing the W3C WS-Policy submission with a version 1.2 
within a standards organization. Reference:

   1. The charter for the W3C WS-Policy WG:
      http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/06/
   2. The member submission: http://www.w3.org/Submission/WS-Policy/ and
      http://www.w3.org/Submission/WS-PolicyAttachment/

Thanks.

>"Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM> 
>Sent by: Monica.Martin@Sun.COM
>25/04/2007 23:17
>
>To
>Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>
>cc
>"'Ram Jeyaraman'" <Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com>, 
>ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject
>Re: [ws-tx] NEW Issue (Errata): Update WS-Policy reference description
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>>Martin Chapman wrote: Monica,
>>I support the suggestion from Ram to update to 1.2 since this is just 
>>    
>>
>correcting a reference, with no 
>  
>
>>implication to update to the "latest version". 
>>
>>Martin.
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>mm1: It is the same implication on your latter point Martin - the 
>reference can be corrected as I stated and not impact "update to latest 
>version." In addition the suggestion I made is a specification that is 
>in the W3C rather than to xmlschema.....For what reason would you not 
>update to the W3C version if the latter condition stayed constant? Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Unless stated otherwise above:
>IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
>741598. 
>Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]