W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2002

Re: One-way messaging in SOAP 1.2

From: Edwin Ortega <ortegae@wns.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:28:09 -0800
Message-ID: <014701c19ed4$b38b7100$32a2583f@val6000>
To: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>, "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>
To: "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 7:44 AM
Subject: Re: One-way messaging in SOAP 1.2


>
>
> Yves Lafon wrote:
>
> <snip/>
> >>NB, separate issue for editors: there seems to be an error here
> >>and elsewhere in the part2 spec, the single-request-response
> >>tmep URI shouldn't belong to the domain www.example.com, but rather
> >>to the w3c.org domain, no? Isn't the HTTP binding intended to be
> >>normative?
> >>
> >
> > The fact that a URI of an example is in the example.com domain or
w3c.org
> > domain don't change the normative/non-normative of the section, the
> > constraint being that all URI in w3.org should be deferencable.
>
>
> I don't think that we can define normative URIs belonging
> to the www.example.com domain as that domain is reserved
> for use in specifications and as such is unmanaged. If we're
> describing a normative HTTP binding, that defines URIs that
> are to be used to identify a resource such as a definition
> for a MEP, then the domain of that URI needs to be one that
> the W3C manages.
>
> I don't think that the URIs we're defining for the definition
> of the single-request-response MEP is meant as an example,
> I believe that it is meant as a normative definition that can
> be referenced by other/future binding specifications.
>
>
> >
> >
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2002 12:30:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:06 GMT