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

RE: Transport Binding Reviews

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 11:04:14 -0700
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D075D7116@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Glyn Normington" <glyn_normington@uk.ibm.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>


As part of a very old thread, I took an action item to get back to you
on your question regarding the HTTP binding. You can find your message
at [1] as part of thread [2]. Note that I am not speaking on behalf of
the WG!

>Default HTTP Binding
>* The document should state what version of HTTP is intended. 
>I would hope
>the binding is suitable for HTTP v1.0 and later.

IMO, we are using HTTP/1.1. Parts of the binding may be straight forward
to use in combination with HTTP/1.0 which is described as an
informational in RFC 1945 [3], but we don't specify any behavior in case
it isn't.

>* What assumptions are being made regarding interoperation at 
>the protocol
>level with SOAP 1.1 bound to HTTP?

In SOAP 1.1 we provide a general description of how SOAP 1.1 and SOAP
1.2 can interoperate [4]  and we provide a framework description [5] of
how properties such as the SOAPAction HTTP header field can be expressed
as a "feature" [6]. We don't in general describe how features defined in
one binding can be carried in other bindings as bindings are hop-by-hop.

Hope this helps,

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Dec/0048.html
[3] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1945.txt
Received on Wednesday, 1 May 2002 14:04:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:20 UTC