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

RE: SOAP 1.1 One-way HTTP Binding doc

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 11:20:41 -0800
Message-ID: <E16EB59B8AEDF445B644617E3C1B3C9C6D2755@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: "WS-Addressing" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

Thanks Mark,

I've just posted such a thing for 202.  

I'll point out that I found your responses quite helpful and clear.
More pointedly, you suggested "allow a response" rather than the some of
the other extreme responses, aka the one-way binding will cause
volcanoes to cover the earth.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: mbaker@gmail.com [mailto:mbaker@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mark
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 11:41 AM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: Christopher B Ferris; WS-Addressing
> Subject: Re: SOAP 1.1 One-way HTTP Binding doc
> On 1/20/06, David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com> wrote:
> > So y'all are looking for a binding that says a 202 is allowed and if
> > the response may or may not contain a SOAP envelope.  It's the
> > preclusion of the soap envelope that's the problem?
> From my POV, yep!
> Mark.
Received on Monday, 23 January 2006 19:21:21 GMT

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