- From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 13:40:30 -0800
- To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- CC: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
David Orchard wrote: > I want to allow it all. SOAP envelope with or without soap body, no > soap envelope. Some people had been talking about the "case of the > envelope missing a body", so I wanted to highlight that.. > Ok. I agree that allowing it all makes sense (so my initial thought that this is editorial wasn't too far off ;-) ) -Anish -- > Dave > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com] >>Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 1:23 PM >>To: David Orchard >>Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org >>Subject: Re: Wordsmithing for SOAP 1.1 request optional response HTTP >>Binding. >> >>No sure what you meant by 'SOAP Envelope or SOAP Body'. >>If we say 'SOAP Envelope' that would cover SOAP Body, SOAP header >>block(s) or both. Unless you explicitly wanted to prevent a SOAP Body. >> >>-Anish >>-- >> >>David Orchard wrote: >> >>>Well, I had meant to say SOAP body, to point out that it might be > > just > >>>header blocks coming back.. Perhaps I should say "SOAP Envelope or > > SOAP > >>>Body"... >>> >>>I agree with the 2nd ed comment :-) >>> >>>Dave >>> >>> >>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com] >>>>Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 12:55 PM >>>>To: David Orchard >>>>Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org >>>>Subject: Re: Wordsmithing for SOAP 1.1 request optional response > > HTTP > >>>>Binding. >>>> >>>>2 editorial (I hope) comments below. >>>> >>>>-Anish >>>>-- >>>> >>>>David Orchard wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>I had an action to wordsmith the new binding around "response". My >>> >>>best >>> >>> >>>>>attempt is: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>This SOAP 1.1 request optional response HTTP binding, in > > conjunction > >>>>>with the SOAP 1.1 binding, can be used for sending request messages >>> >>>with >>> >>> >>>>>an optional SOAP response. This binding augments the SOAP 1.1 >>> >>>binding >>> >>> >>>>>by allowing that the HTTP [RFC 2616] response MAY have a 202 status >>> >>>code >>> >>> >>>>>and the response body MAY be empty. Note that the HTTP [RFC 2616] >>>>>specification states "the 202 response is intentionally >>> >>>non-committal". >>> >>> >>>>>As such, any content in the response body, including a SOAP body, >>> >>>MAY or >>> >>> >>>>s/SOAP body/SOAP Envelope/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>MAY not be an expected SOAP response. >>>> >>>>s/MAY not/MAY NOT/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Old text: >>>>> >>>>>This SOAP 1.1 request optional response HTTP binding can be used > > for > >>>>>sending request messages with an optional response. For such >>> >>>messages, >>> >>> >>>>>the HTTP [RFC 2616] >>>>> >>>> > <file:///C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\dorchard\Local%20Settings\Tempora > >>>ry >>> >>> > > %20Internet%20Files\OLK6\soap11reqoptresphttpbinding.html#RFC2616#RFC261 > >>>6> >>> >>>>>response MUST be a 202 status code and the response body MAY be >>> >>>empty. >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>>Cheers, >>>>> >>>>>Dave >>>>> >>> >>>
Received on Monday, 13 February 2006 21:41:00 UTC