- From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 16:43:31 -0500
- 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 UTC