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

Re: incosistency between part 1 & 2 specs

From: Jose Kahan <jose.kahan@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 20:07:07 +0100
To: Shivaram Mysore <Shivaram.Mysore@Sun.COM>
Cc: www-xkms@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040130190707.GB32260@inrialpes.fr>

Hello Shivaram,

Good catch. I'm not sure if I understood what you mean by wrong title
in your phrase:

On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 02:57:17PM -0800, Shivaram Mysore wrote:
> I am looking at the resolution of issue 301 [1] which is closed. 
> According to this, use of SOAP 1.2 is a MUST.  This is clearly reflected 
> in para 42 of Protocol Bindings Spec [2].   For [3] para 398 & [2] 
> paragarph 80, title is incorrect - It must be- "SOAP Version 1.2 Part 1: 
> Messaging Framework".  This needs to be fixed.
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xkms/2003Aug/0019.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS/Drafts/XKMS20030826/xkms-part-2.html
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS/Drafts/XKMS20030826/xkms-part-1.html

In [1], it should be Soap 1.2. I'll update the entry to be the same
as [2]p[81] and to remove ambiguity change [SOAP] to [SOAP1.2-1].

In [2], I'll leave [SOAP[ as it is.

There's p[80] for Soap 1.1 and pp.[81, 82] that talk about Soap 1.2. There
are some typos there that I'll fix:

The link in p[80] points to Soap 1.2 (as it's a generic link). I'll make
it point to the Soap Note.

[81] and p[82] have a trailing W3C Working Draft string that I'll remove.

Will this satisfy your request?
> As this is a editorial fix, Jose, can we update the spec as we have 
> already sent the message to the Director?

There's no problem as I got a request to search some extra information
before the meeting. See my follow up message.

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?

Received on Friday, 30 January 2004 14:07:51 UTC

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