W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > December 2003

Re: Bad link in specs [was: SOAP 1.1 w3c Recommendation ??]

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:26:44 -0500
To: Scott Nichol <snichol@computer.org>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <20031218212644.G954@www.markbaker.ca>

Hmm, that's new.  I remember having this same discussion with Yves a
few months ago when we agreed, IIRC, that it was good that /TR/SOAP
didn't redirect to SOAP 1.2, unlike /TR/html which does redirect to
XHTML.  The difference is due to the public meaning of "/TR/SOAP", as
determined by how people use it, is that it identifies the SOAP 1.1
spec.

Bug!

Mark.

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 05:42:26PM -0500, Scott Nichol wrote:
> 
> Please forgive me for barging in on this list.
> 
> I am not sure to whom I should bring attention that the specs, namely the Primer (http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part0/) and Messaging Framework (http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/) contain the same bad link for SOAP 1.1.  Both point the user to http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/, which *was* SOAP 1.1, but which is now the Messaging Framework.  SOAP 1.1 can, in fact, be found at [1] below (which I found in an old post to this list by Martin Gudgin).
> 
> Amusingly, the document at [2] below also has bad links for SOAP 1.1.
> 
> Scott Nichol
> 
> > If you have to work with SOAP 1.1 then the Note[1] you found IS the
> > latest spec. You might also take a look at the WS-I Basic Profile[2]
> > which clarifies some of the ambiguities in SOAP 1.1 ( amongst other
> > things ).
> > 
> > Gudge
> > 
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-SOAP-20000508/
> > [2]
> > http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/Basic/2003-06/BasicProfile-1.0-BdAD.html

-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Thursday, 18 December 2003 21:26:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:15 GMT