Regarding Issue 173 and references to SOAP

[Ron Monzillo <ronald.monzillo@sun.com>]

from the minutes of 11/04

>[173]  SOAP 1.1 vs 1.2 terminology
>Hal:  plan has been to (a) support all SOAP versions; (b) have normative
>  text and examples be 1.1; (c) Hal will create appendix about changes
>  required for 1.2; but is this will of TC?
>  biggest problem is Dsig apparently being undefined for SOAP 1.2
>  Dave Orchard suggested possible approaches in msg
>Bob:  is it that Dsig can't be used with SOAP 1.2?
>Rich:  it is possible to create 1.2 messages that can't be signed
>  because they have no non-Infoset serialization
>Rich:  section 5 of core would have to be rewritten
>  make clear that 1.2 can be used with XML 1.0 serialization
>(long discussion of mustUnderstand issue)
>  how to resolve?
>    ask OASIS TAB for guidance that would apply across many TCs?
>      yes, but need to make progress more quickly
>  participants will summarize positions to the list
>Hal:  please make issue 190 Open rather than Pending
>  Kelvin:  OK
>Kelvin:  173 will remain Open, will cover both editorial and tech issues
>
In the table following line 175 of the core the following namespace is 
identified

S:  http://www.w3.org/2002/12/soap-envelope

but the examples at lines 271, 506, 970, 1048,  1084, 1255, and 1279 of

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wss/download.php/3282/WSS-SOAPMessageSecurity-17-082703.pdf

all specify <S:Envelope xmlns:S="http://www.w3.org/2001/12/soap-envelope";

Should the examples be made consistent with the namespace table, or have we
agreed to a resolution to 173 that would change the namespace table as well?