Responses inline . . .
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Goodner [mailto:]
> Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 11:58 PM
[stuff deleted]
> On line 329 of the change bar version you dropped the
> additions of the <wsrm: ... > around CloseSequenceResponse,
> was that intentional?
Yeah. Lately I've been thinking that we are over-using the "looks just
like the XML" trick. Its ok if you are refering to a specific elements
but, to be mind-numbingly exact about it (and hey, who doesn't?), there
is no such thing a "<wsrm:CloseSequenceResponse> message". There are
"SOAP messages who's <s:Body> element contains the
<wsrm:CloseSequenceResponse> element" but we don't want to have to say
that every time.
I think its ok to use a shorthand like "CloseSequenceResponse message",
but I think its weird to then act as if you are being precise by
including the XML syntax elements.
> The only other comment I have is why did you introduce the
> space between Reliable and Messaging in the title?
Because "ReliableMessaging" is not a word. The main title should consist
of proper English words. The semi-sub-title "WS-ReliableMessaing" starts
mashing things together in a computer-science way.
- gp
