W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > May 2001

RE: [i95, i22] - Proposal for clarifying use of SOAPAction

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 09:20:51 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F1923FF@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Daniel Barclay'" <Daniel.Barclay@digitalfocus.com>
Cc: "'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Barclay [mailto:Daniel.Barclay@digitalfocus.com]
> Sent: 02 May 2001 23:08
> To: Williams, Stuart
> Cc: 'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [i95, i22] - Proposal for clarifying use of SOAPAction
> 
> 
> "Williams, Stuart" wrote:

<snip/>

> I think the registry is the set of RFCs that are "traceable ... to ... 
> HTTP1/1."  (That is, there might not be any compact, compiled summary of
> all the codes.)

I think IANA are maintaining a registry. See:
   http://www.iana.org/numbers.htm#H and
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes

[The latter is the same file (content at least) as the one that Mark
Nottingham found]

> (Note:  RFCs at Sunsite.dk have helpful forward links to later RFCs that
update 
> or supersede them.  For example, see
http://sunsite.dk/RFC/rfc/rfc2616.html 
> and how it is annotated with "updated by 2817.")
> 
> 
> > Also, would we qualify as a "standards track document within the IETF
> > Applications Area."?
> 
> No, we're not a document.  :-)

Ok... :-) re-phrasing then:

Will a future XMLP spec qualify as an "standards track document within the
IETF Applications Area."?

>
> Daniel
> -- 
> Daniel Barclay
> Digital Focus
> Daniel.Barclay@digitalfocus.com
Thanks

Stuart
 
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2001 04:21:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:01 GMT