Ugo Corda wrote:
>Shouldn't we be now referring to Basic Profile 1.1 instead of Basic
>Profile 1.0?
>
>Ugo
>
>
mm1: Good suggestion Ugo. Thank you.
>>-----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.
>
>
>
