RE: [ws-caf] proposed resolution for issue 129

[Mark Little <Mark.Little@arjuna.com>]

It does define a default, which is false, but there is no requirement for us 
to adopt that default. Hence the option to the TC.

Mark.

>===== Original Message From "Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com> 
=====
>This is the soap:mustUnderstand, yes (the context mustUnderstand is the
>subject of 134, and may or may not survive).
>
>Doesn't soap define a default (false, i think). Do we need to define a
>further one ?
>
>Peter
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com]
>Sent: 24 June 2004 12:25
>To: ws-caf
>Subject: [ws-caf] proposed resolution for issue 129
>
>
>http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=129
>
>I'd like to propose that we change the text to agree with this, i.e.,
>that mustUnderstand should be defined by referencing specifications. The
>only caveat would be: should there be a default and if so, what value to
>use? I think for interoperability purposes there should be a default and
>it should be false.
>
>Mark.
>
>----
>Mark Little,
>Chief Architect, Transactions,
>Arjuna Technologies Ltd.
>
>www.arjuna.com