RE: HTTP Transfer Coding and 1.0

Thank you for the comment below, and for your patience with us in
resolving it.  We tracked the comment below as Issue LC28 [1].  The WG
adopted the proposal at [2] to fix the issue.  The editors have
incorporated the fix into their latest drafts [2].

If you agree with our disposition of your comment, we'd like you to
acknowledge it within two weeks; otherwise we will assume you are
satisfied.  The WG plans to enter a second (short) Last Call period in
the near future, and we invite you to review that publication as well.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC28
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Mar/0109.html
[3]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts.
html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-desc-
> comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Asir Vedamuthu
> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 4:32 AM
> To: 'public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org'
> Subject: HTTP Transfer Coding and 1.0
> 
> 
> ref:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-bindings-20040803/#http-transfer-
> coding-
> decl
> 
> "3.10.1 Description
> 
> Every Binding Message Reference component MAY indicate which transfer
> codings, as defined in section 3.6 of [IETF RFC 2616], are available
> for
> this particular message."
> 
> This feature does not apply to HTTP 1.0 And, when {http version}="1.0"
> and
> {http transfer coding} claim is made, is that an error or should the
> processors safely ignore it? I prefer the latter. Please clarify.
> 
> Regards,
> Asir S Vedamuthu
> asirv at webmethods dot com
> http://www.webmethods.com/

Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2005 20:13:47 UTC