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

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

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:54:55 -0800
Message-ID: <E16EB59B8AEDF445B644617E3C1B3C9CBD1EAB@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, "Marc Hadley" <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

Nothing is simple.  I'm certainly not trying to break/extend/redefine
the SOAP format.  

I can live with SOAP Envelope.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 11:26 AM
> To: Marc Hadley
> Cc: David Orchard; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Wordsmithing for SOAP 1.1 request optional response HTTP
> Binding.
> 
> 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 22:56:24 GMT

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