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

Re: Clarifying optionality of HTTP binding

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:16:04 +0100
Message-ID: <3C9B2084.3DA764C4@crf.canon.fr>
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
CC: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
s/or indeed to define/or indeed of/

noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:

> <original>
> "The purpose of the SOAP HTTP binding is to provide a binding of SOAP to
> HTTP. It is important to note that use of the SOAP HTTP binding is
> optional and that nothing precludes the specification of different
> bindings to other protocols, or indeed to define other bindings to HTTP.
> Because of the optionality of using the SOAP HTTP binding, it is NOT a
> requirement to implement it as part of a SOAP node."
> </original>
>
> <proposed>
> "The purpose of the SOAP HTTP binding is to provide a binding of SOAP to
> HTTP. It is important to note that use of the SOAP HTTP binding is
> optional and that nothing precludes the specification of different
> bindings to other protocols, or indeed to define other bindings to HTTP.
> Because of the optionality of using the SOAP HTTP binding, it is NOT a
> requirement to implement it as part of a SOAP node.  A node that does correctly
> and completely implement the HTTP binding me to be said to "conform to the
> SOAP 1.2 HTTP binding.""
> </proposed>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
> Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
> 03/21/02 05:18 PM
>
>
>         To:     <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
>         cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
>         Subject:        Clarifying optionality of HTTP binding
>
> I don't think there is anything controversial in this mail but just
> wanted to be sure that there are no surprises. I believe the HTTP
> binding provided in SOAP 1.2 part 2 Adjuncts is just one of many
> possible bindings (even to HTTP) and is optional to implement. As such,
> I think we need to clarify that in section 7 in part 2 with something
> like the following text:
>
> "The purpose of the SOAP HTTP binding is to provide a binding of SOAP to
> HTTP. It is important to note that use of the SOAP HTTP binding is
> optional and that nothing precludes the specification of different
> bindings to other protocols, or indeed to define other bindings to HTTP.
> Because of the optionality of using the SOAP HTTP binding, it is NOT a
> requirement to implement it as part of a SOAP node."
>
> Comments?
>
> Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
> mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part2.html#soapinhttp
Received on Friday, 22 March 2002 07:16:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:09 GMT