- From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:37:34 +0200
- To: Asir Vedamuthu <asirv@webmethods.com>
- Cc: "'www-ws-desc@w3.org'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <20040721123734.GA21968@w3.org>
Hi Asir, all. I had a look at issue 226[1] to resolve it editorially as agreed by the WG. * Asir Vedamuthu <asirv@webmethods.com> [2004-06-10 12:36-0400] > Cross-binding HTTP Features are, > > @http:authenticationType and @http:authenticationRealm at the endpoint EII. > @http:cookies and @http:version at the binding EII. > @http:transfer-coding at the input/output EII (with defaulting at binding > and operation) > .. > > These features are available for use within SOAP 12 Binding, HTTP Binding, > SOAP 11 Binding, etc. Should these HTTP features be designated as common > HTTP transport protocol specific features and described in a separate > section in Part 3? I am wondering about flagging those particular properties as generic. I could come up with a new SOAP HTTP binding and its description would make use of say http:method, which could then be considered generic. Basically, the set of so-called generic properties is difficult to define, and I would go as far as saying that potentially any property could be reused in another binding built upon the HTTP binding. This is why I quite like Dave's approach of listing HTTP Binding properties that apply to the SOAP 1.2 HTTP binding at the beginning. In order to make it more reader-friendly, I think we should add some links to where they're defined. Does that make sense? Regards, Hugo 1. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.html#x226 -- Hugo Haas - W3C mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Wednesday, 21 July 2004 08:37:34 UTC