W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sw-meaning@w3.org > January 2004

The meaning of "http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP"

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 17:29:14 -0500
To: public-sw-meaning@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040108172914.H954@www.markbaker.ca>

I thought this made for an interesting data point.

I've heard that the proposed resolution to this issue is to send out
an email to a bunch of standards orgs, asking them to fix their use of
the SOAP URI.  Hello?!?!

Mark.

----- Forwarded message from Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> -----

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
To: Scott Nichol <snichol@computer.org>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Subject: Re: Bad link in specs [was: SOAP 1.1 w3c Recommendation ??]
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:26:44 -0500
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
X-RegEx-Original-IP: 18.29.1.71
X-Original-To: xml-dist-app@frink.w3.org
Delivered-To: xml-dist-app@frink.w3.org
Delivered-To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <028c01c3c5b8$361fbd90$6401a8c0@northgate>; from snichol@computer.org on Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 05:42:26PM -0500
X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/20031218212644.G954@www.markbaker.ca
X-Mailing-List: <xml-dist-app@w3.org> archive/latest/8221
List-Id: <xml-dist-app.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Dec 2003 02:27:52.0118 (UTC) FILETIME=[B3C50560:01C3C5D7]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.8 required=5.0
	tests=IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,
	      SIGNATURE_SHORT_DENSE,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,SUPERLONG_LINE,
	      USER_AGENT,USER_AGENT_MUTT,X_LOOP,X_MAILING_LIST
	version=2.43
X-Spam-Level: 


Hmm, that's new.  I remember having this same discussion with Yves a
few months ago when we agreed, IIRC, that it was good that /TR/SOAP
didn't redirect to SOAP 1.2, unlike /TR/html which does redirect to
XHTML.  The difference is due to the public meaning of "/TR/SOAP", as
determined by how people use it, is that it identifies the SOAP 1.1
spec.

Bug!

Mark.

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 05:42:26PM -0500, Scott Nichol wrote:
> 
> Please forgive me for barging in on this list.
> 
> I am not sure to whom I should bring attention that the specs, namely the Primer (http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part0/) and Messaging Framework (http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/) contain the same bad link for SOAP 1.1.  Both point the user to http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/, which *was* SOAP 1.1, but which is now the Messaging Framework.  SOAP 1.1 can, in fact, be found at [1] below (which I found in an old post to this list by Martin Gudgin).
> 
> Amusingly, the document at [2] below also has bad links for SOAP 1.1.
> 
> Scott Nichol
> 
> > If you have to work with SOAP 1.1 then the Note[1] you found IS the
> > latest spec. You might also take a look at the WS-I Basic Profile[2]
> > which clarifies some of the ambiguities in SOAP 1.1 ( amongst other
> > things ).
> > 
> > Gudge
> > 
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-SOAP-20000508/
> > [2]
> > http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/Basic/2003-06/BasicProfile-1.0-BdAD.html

-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca

----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Thursday, 8 January 2004 17:31:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:56:01 UTC