W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > February 2006

Re: Wordsmithing for SOAP 1.1 request optional response HTTP Binding.

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:34:52 -0500
Message-ID: <c70bc85d0602131734v3a020ecbv19f93cae120b9300@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org

On 2/13/06, David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com> wrote:
> I had an action to wordsmith the new binding around "response".  My best
> attempt is:
> This SOAP 1.1 request optional response HTTP binding, in conjunction with
> the SOAP 1.1 binding, can be used for sending request messages with an
> optional SOAP response.  This binding augments the SOAP 1.1 binding by
> allowing that the HTTP [RFC 2616] response MAY have a 202 status code and
> the response body MAY be empty.  Note that the HTTP [RFC 2616] specification
> states "the 202 response is intentionally non-committal".  As such, any
> content in the response body, including a SOAP body, MAY or MAY not be an
> expected SOAP response.

But if you receive a 202, then you *know* it isn't the "expected SOAP
response", so I don't think that last part is right.  I'd suggest
something like this instead;

"As such, any content in the response body, including a SOAP body,
MUST NOT be interpreted as the expected SOAP response body content."

I also added "body content" at the end there, just so it's comparing
apples-to-apples.  There's certainly a much more aesthetically
pleasing equivalent, but I'll leave that to the wordsmiths. 8-)  An
example might help too.


Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.       http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2006 01:34:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:12 UTC