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

Re: Clarifying optionality of HTTP binding

From: David Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 12:22:06 -0800
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF7C4FC2E9.99AFBDB3-ON88256B84.006F9EC2@boulder.ibm.com>

I think it should be called the "SOAP HTTP Binding" (omitting the "default"
qualifier) -- the nature of the optionality of the binding is specified in
the nature of those things described in SOAP Part 2, and I think adding
"default" to the HTTP description is confusing.

............................................
David C. Fallside, IBM
Ext Ph: 530.477.7169
Int  Ph: 544.9665
fallside@us.ibm.com



|---------+---------------------------->
|         |           Christopher      |
|         |           Ferris           |
|         |           <chris.ferris@sun|
|         |           .com>            |
|         |           Sent by:         |
|         |           xml-dist-app-requ|
|         |           est@w3.org       |
|         |                            |
|         |                            |
|         |           03/22/2002 04:02 |
|         |           AM               |
|         |                            |
|---------+---------------------------->
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |                                                                                                                           |
  |       To:       Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>                                                            |
  |       cc:       Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM@Lotus, xml-dist-app@w3.org                                                  |
  |       Subject:  Re: Clarifying optionality of HTTP binding                                                                |
  |                                                                                                                           |
  |                                                                                                                           |
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|



typo: s/me/may/

also, haven't we been calling this the "default" HTTP
binding? [1]. Shouldn't we be consistent in calling it that?

Cheers,

Chris

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:

> Done :)
>
> Henrik
>
>
>><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>
>>
>
>
Received on Friday, 22 March 2002 15:41:08 GMT

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