W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xkms@w3.org > February 2004

Re: incosistency between part 1 & 2 specs

From: Shivaram Mysore <Shivaram.Mysore@Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 11:06:03 -0800
To: jose.kahan@w3.org, www-xkms@w3.org
Message-id: <401FF11B.3040004@sun.com>

Folks,

After some investigation and also looking at existing implementations 
[1], I believe we should leave this "asis" in the current spec w.r.t. 
wording - 1.1 - REQUIRED and 1.2 RECOMMENDED.

The quality and usability of current implementations has lead me to 
this.  I believe this issue should be closed.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/03/soap1.2implementation.html

/Shivaram


Jose Kahan wrote:
> Hi Shivaram,
> 
> I fixed the refs. to Soap to point to the latest versions as you
> requested in your previous message.
> 
> As I was unable to get a URL pointing to the Soap 1.1 note, I did
> the same thing as the Soap 1.2 spec and I pointed to it using
> /TR/SOAP/ (which in fact redirects to Soap 1.2, but that's not
> our problem).
> 
> Could you give input on the following?
> 
> 
>>Is this a similar typo? In [2]p[353], we have:
>>
>>SOAP 1.1 Transport	All	REQUIRED	Services MUST support
>>                                    the use of SOAP 1.1 encapsulation	
>>SOAP 1.2 Transport	All	RECOMMENDED	Services SHOULD support
>>                                    the use of SOAP 1.2 encapsulation
>>
>>Shouldn't it be required for Soap 1.2 and recommended for Soap 1.1?
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -jose


-- 
_____________________________________________________________________
Shivaram H. Mysore <shivaram.mysore@sun.com>

JavaSoft, Sun Microsystems Inc.     Co-Chair, W3C's XKMS WG
                                     http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS

Direct: (408)276-7524
Fax:    (408)276-7674
_____________________________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2004 14:11:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:31:42 UTC