W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > February 2007

Re: CR112, CR144, and everything

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:37:40 -0500
To: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: www-ws-desc <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1171550260.3187.120.camel@localhost>

On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 15:29 +0100, Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:
> Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> >> Isn't the text you quote above already covered elsewhere (e.g. 5.10.4.xxx)? Can't we simply drop it?
> >>     
> >
> > I don't believe so since we only provide mapping to SOAP
> > Request-Response in 5.10.4. IMO, 5.10.4 should cover SOAP Response as well, thus my question.
> >   
> Don't we cover SOAP-Response in 5.10.4.2 ?

Oops, correct. Somehow I missed that despite looking 10 times that
section yesterday. Only the service mentions
"application/x-www-form-urlencoded", is that intentional? Seems to me
that this applies to the WSDL input message in all cases.

> >> But not to the exact same Req-Resp MEP! (although they share the same 
> >> URI and, probably?, the same behaviour) See my earlier message [3].
> >>     
> >
> > ok. Btw, we will link to the latest SOAP 1.2 REC, ie the one that will
> > contain the revised SOAP Request-Response MEP.
> >   
> Could this break our implementations?

I don't think it can break existing implementations but it does add the
202 return code into the picture. Our test suite already handles it and
as far as I understand SOAP implementations go fine with it.

Philippe
Received on Thursday, 15 February 2007 14:37:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:46 GMT