- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 11:20:41 -0800
- To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: "WS-Addressing" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Thanks Mark, I've just posted such a thing for 202. I'll point out that I found your responses quite helpful and clear. More pointedly, you suggested "allow a response" rather than the some of the other extreme responses, aka the one-way binding will cause volcanoes to cover the earth. Cheers, Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: mbaker@gmail.com [mailto:mbaker@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mark Baker > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 11:41 AM > To: David Orchard > Cc: Christopher B Ferris; WS-Addressing > Subject: Re: SOAP 1.1 One-way HTTP Binding doc > > On 1/20/06, David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com> wrote: > > So y'all are looking for a binding that says a 202 is allowed and if so, > > the response may or may not contain a SOAP envelope. It's the > > preclusion of the soap envelope that's the problem? > > From my POV, yep! > > Mark.
Received on Monday, 23 January 2006 19:21:21 UTC