[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: resolution to issue 140
Mark,
I'm
sorry, you've confused me somewhat. In 0.3, the text of section 2, fourth
bullet, the context structure in figure 3 and the schema that was in the same
zip file all show an optional choice of context-manager (a ServiceRefType)
or context-url (a xs:anyURI). There doesn't seem to be any inconsistency among
them.
The
issue pointed out several under-specifications on the interpretation of the
context-url choice. The simplest fix, in terms of editorial work, would be
to delete it.
If it
is true that, by existing decisions, "the only way of
accessing the context by reference is via the Context Manager " (i.e. http get
dereferencing is not supported and the "context-url" element and all its works
should be deleted), then this is an editorial issue to align with this decision,
though I'm not quite sure when this was change was agreed.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com] Sent: 07 July 2004 14:47 To: ws-caf; Furniss, Peter Subject: resolution to issue 140
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]