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

Re: Clarifying optionality of HTTP binding

From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 16:43:31 -0500
Message-ID: <3C9BA583.8040607@sun.com>
To: David Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>
CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org
I was merely pointing out that the title of section
7 is currently: 7 Default HTTP Binding.

see http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part2.html#soapinhttp

I don't mind if we call it 'foo', just that we be consistent
in what we call it.

Cheers,

Chris

David Fallside wrote:

> 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 16:44:26 GMT

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