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 15:04:50 -0800
Message-ID: <01bf01c19ee2$38756620$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 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: One-way messaging in SOAP 1.2


> Yves,
>
> There's nothing in the spec (part2) that suggests
> that Section 7.1 is meant as merely an example of
> a (T)MEP definition. Similarly, there is nothing in
> the spec to suggest that the HTTP binding defined
> in section 8 is intended to be an example, and it
> references the URI that is identified as the URI
> for the (T)MEP defined in section 7.1.
>
> Neither are examples, they should have w3c.org domain
> scoped URIs.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
> Yves Lafon wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Edwin Ortega wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>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.
> >>>
> >
> > As I said it is for example, to have a real MEP definition that use URI
in
> > W3C workspace, URI will exist and be deferencable (like namespaces for
> > instance).
> >
> >
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2002 14:07:39 GMT

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