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

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

From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:25:55 -0800
Message-ID: <43F22EC3.207@oracle.com>
To: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
CC: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org

Yes, I was getting a little sloppy with wordings there.
I assumed Dave was trying to highlight *non-empty* SOAP Body and that is 
what I meant.

-Anish
--

Marc Hadley wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2006, at 4:22 PM, Anish Karmarkar wrote:
> 
>>
>> No sure what you meant by 'SOAP Envelope or SOAP Body'.
>> If we say 'SOAP Envelope' that would cover SOAP Body, SOAP header  
>> block(s) or both. Unless you explicitly wanted to prevent a SOAP Body.
>>
> Whilst not wishing to nit-pick I think its worth pointing out that a  
> SOAP Envelope has to have a SOAP Body, its not optional.
> 
> Marc.
> 
>>
>> David Orchard wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I had meant to say SOAP body, to point out that it might be  just
>>> header blocks coming back..  Perhaps I should say "SOAP Envelope  or 
>>> SOAP
>>> Body"...
>>> I agree with the 2nd ed comment :-)
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com]
>>>> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 12:55 PM
>>>> To: David Orchard
>>>> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
>>>> Subject: Re: Wordsmithing for SOAP 1.1 request optional response  HTTP
>>>> Binding.
>>>>
>>>> 2 editorial (I hope) comments below.
>>>>
>>>> -Anish
>>>> -- 
>>>>
>>>> David Orchard 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
>>>
>>>> s/SOAP body/SOAP Envelope/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> MAY not be an expected SOAP response.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> s/MAY not/MAY NOT/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Old text:
>>>>>
>>>>> This SOAP 1.1 request optional response HTTP binding can be used  for
>>>>> sending request messages with an optional response. For such
>>>
>>> messages,
>>>
>>>>> the HTTP [RFC 2616]
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> <file:///C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\dorchard\Local%20Settings 
>>> \Tempora
>>> ry
>>> %20Internet%20Files\OLK6 
>>> \soap11reqoptresphttpbinding.html#RFC2616#RFC261
>>> 6>
>>>
>>>>> response MUST be a 202 status code and the response body MAY be
>>>
>>> empty.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave
>>>>>
>>
> 
> ---
> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
> Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2006 19:26:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:11 GMT