Shouldn't we be now referring to Basic Profile 1.1 instead of Basic
Profile 1.0?
Ugo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Monica J. Martin [mailto:]
> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 1:53 PM
> To: wsbpeltc
> Cc: Furniss, Peter
> Subject: [wsbpel] Issue - 86 - Proposal For Vote
>
>
> Proposal to vote, Issue 86 SOAP v1.2
>
> Change in Section 3.0:
>
> Change From:
> "With respect to [WS-I Basic Profile] (Basic Profile 1.0) all BPEL
> implementations SHOULD be configurable such that they can
> participate in
> Basic Profile 1.0 compliant interactions. A BPEL implementation MAY
> allow the Basic Profile 1.0 configuration to be disabled, even for
> scenarios encompassed by the Basic Profile 1.0."
>
> Change To (add two sentences):
> "With respect to [WS-I Basic Profile] (Basic Profile 1.0) all BPEL
> implementations SHOULD be configurable such that they can
> participate in
> Basic Profile 1.0 compliant interactions. A BPEL implementation MAY
> allow the Basic Profile 1.0 configuration to be disabled, even for
> scenarios encompassed by the Basic Profile 1.0. Future
> versions of the
> WS-I Basic Profile may support the W3C SOAP v1.2 Recommendation and a
> subsequent WSDL v2.0 when complete in W3C. It is not the objective of
> this specification to define or require that particular protocol
> bindings be supported by compliant implementations."
>
> Thanks.
> Submitted by: Ron Ten-Hove and Monica J. Martin
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from
> the roster of the OASIS TC), go to
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/le
ave_workgroup.php.
