W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > December 2005

Re: Resolution of issue Rec39

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:13:10 -0500
To: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Cc: "Xml-Dist-App@W3. Org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, xmlp-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF157C91E6.AD1F64F1-ON852570D8.007F0A7D-852570D8.007F8CAB@lotus.com>


I believe your note accurately reflects the decision we made a couple of 
weeks ago.  That was a decision I actively supported.  As we discussed on 
the 12/14 telcon, I've since somewhat changed my position and new think it 
may be in the best interest of the community to focus on the ambiguity in 
the existing rec, and allow ourselves to make the envelope (but not the 
whole response) in the Req/Resp optional, and to document that in an 
erratum  (see [1]).  So, I suppose that's a request to reopen the just 
closed Rec39.  The alternative, which I think I would also support, would 
be to publish a new (and arguably "incompatible") SOAP 1.2 2nd edition, 
SOAP 1.2b, SOAP 1.3 with the new feature and take it through a full CR/PR 

Sorry for any confusion caused by my change of position.  Thank you.


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2005Dec/0010.html

Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142

Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
12/14/2005 12:48 AM
        To:     xmlp-comments@w3.org
        cc:     "Xml-Dist-App@W3. Org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, (bcc: Noah 
        Subject:        Resolution of issue Rec39

At the 07-dec-2005 concall the XMLP WG decided to close issue Rec39 [1] 
by including the requirement for an optional-response/empty HTTP 
entity-body in the new MEP/binding work that the WG is undertaking.

The WG also decided that per the existing binding defined in SOAP 1.2 
[2], it is not possible to send back an empty HTTP entity body for the 
non-fault case when using the request-response MEP. The reasons for this 
are listed in the email at [3].

-Anish Karmarkar
on behalf of XMLP WG

PS: as the person who raised this issue, I'm happy with the resolution.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-rec-issues.html#x39
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part2-20030624/#soapinhttp
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2005Aug/0011.html
Received on Thursday, 15 December 2005 23:13:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:28 UTC