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: Fri, 4 May 2001 10:04:06 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F19240A@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@mnot.net>, "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "'Daniel Barclay'" <Daniel.Barclay@digitalfocus.com>, "'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Hi Mark,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@mnot.net]
> Sent: 03 May 2001 19:35
> To: Williams, Stuart
> Cc: 'Daniel Barclay'; 'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [i95, i22] - Proposal for clarifying use of SOAPAction
> 
> 
> On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 09:20:51AM +0100, Williams, Stuart wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 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."?
> 
> The way that we're doing this in P3P was to author a compact, minimal
> internet-draft explaining the semantics and relevence of what is
> being registered (an HTTP header in our case; actually, there isn't
> an HTTP header registry, but same principle), and then pursue that on
> an individual-submission standard track. This would mean that the
> entire SOAP/XMLP effort would not need to go through the IETF
> process, just a document explaining what we're doing that needs to
> get registered.

Cool... just a base we need to cover *if* we need XMLP/SOAP specific HTTP
status codes.

> -- 
> Mark Nottingham
> http://www.mnot.net/

Thanks,

stuart
Received on Friday, 4 May 2001 05:04:25 GMT

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