I believe that
the F2F decided on the thrust (which is accurately represented in these
drafts), and commissioned you to create wording as an editorial
task.
In my view no
additional vote is needed.
Alastair
-----Original
Message-----
From: Mark
Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com]
Sent: 10 August
2004 09:54
To: ws-caf
Subject: Re: [ws-caf] propsed text for
issue 133
I'm unclear as to whether we
were expected to vote on this or whether it was determined to be purely
editorial. Anyone care to chime in? I'd like to get this sorted asap to get
the 0.5 version out.
----- Original Message -----
Sent:
Monday, August 09, 2004 11:32 AM
Subject: RE:
[ws-caf] propsed text for issue 133
I
would suggest amending this to read
"If a context is present on a
received message and it [delete: that] contains a
context-manager element then that element MAY be used by the recipient to
dereference the context. Any other information present in the received
context at this point [insert:] cannot be assumed to represent the current
or entire contents of the context [delete: SHOULD NOT be assumed to
represent the entire context structure]. If the context-manager is
dereferenced, it MUST return the entire [insert] current contents of the
context, [insert:] i.e. the values corresponding to the context's child
elements held by the context service at the point of receiving the
getContents message."
Alastair
-----Original
Message-----
From: Mark
Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com]
Sent: 09 August
2004 11:04
To: ws-caf
Subject: [ws-caf] propsed text for
issue 133
"If a context is present on a
received message and it that contains a context-manager element
then that element MAY be used by the recipient to dereference the context.
Any other information present in the received context at this point SHOULD
NOT be assumed to represent the entire context structure. If the
context-manager is dereferenced, it MUST return the entire contents of the
context."
----
Mark Little,
Chief
Architect, Transactions,
Arjuna Technologies Ltd.
www.arjuna.com