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

Text for issue 300/359

From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@macromedia.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:16:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CB1FF0A474AEA84EA0206D5B05F6A4CB02A4BE6C@S1001EXM02.macromedia.com>
To: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>


Hi folks:

My apologies, I've been sucked into other areas recently and haven't come through on my action item from the 2nd.  Here is a cut at the text from the discussion as I recall it.

In Part 1, Appendix A, change "Note" to "Notes" and insert the following text before the existing note:

<insertedText>
Note that there may well be transport binding mismatches in either of these situations, which may
prevent the nodes from even processing a message.  For instance, the SOAP 1.1[link] HTTP binding requires
a content-type of "text/xml", whereas the SOAP 1.2 HTTP binding[link] specifies "application/soap+xml".
If a SOAP 1.1 node receives a typical SOAP 1.2 HTTP message, it will not recognize it due to the
content-type mismatch.  Therefore, SOAP 1.1 nodes which wish to respond with an upgrade fault (rather
than a binding-level fault) over HTTP must be modified to accept the SOAP 1.2 content-type.

SOAP 1.2 nodes wishing to either provide SOAP 1.1 functionality OR to respond to SOAP 1.1 messages with
an upgrade fault must respect the appropriate SOAP 1.1 transport bindings.  For example, in the HTTP case,
SOAP 1.2 nodes must accept HTTP messages with content-type "text/xml" for purposes of SOAP 1.1
processing or faulting.
</insertedText>

Does this get the jist across?  Once again, apologies for the late action.

--Glen
Received on Thursday, 17 October 2002 10:16:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:11 GMT