- From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:37:40 -0500
- To: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Cc: www-ws-desc <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 15:29 +0100, Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote: > Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: > >> Isn't the text you quote above already covered elsewhere (e.g. 5.10.4.xxx)? Can't we simply drop it? > >> > > > > I don't believe so since we only provide mapping to SOAP > > Request-Response in 5.10.4. IMO, 5.10.4 should cover SOAP Response as well, thus my question. > > > Don't we cover SOAP-Response in 5.10.4.2 ? Oops, correct. Somehow I missed that despite looking 10 times that section yesterday. Only the service mentions "application/x-www-form-urlencoded", is that intentional? Seems to me that this applies to the WSDL input message in all cases. > >> But not to the exact same Req-Resp MEP! (although they share the same > >> URI and, probably?, the same behaviour) See my earlier message [3]. > >> > > > > ok. Btw, we will link to the latest SOAP 1.2 REC, ie the one that will > > contain the revised SOAP Request-Response MEP. > > > Could this break our implementations? I don't think it can break existing implementations but it does add the 202 return code into the picture. Our test suite already handles it and as far as I understand SOAP implementations go fine with it. Philippe
Received on Thursday, 15 February 2007 14:37:58 UTC