- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 17:29:14 -0500
- To: public-sw-meaning@w3.org
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