- From: Yassir Elley <yassir.elley@sun.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 14:05:55 -0400
- To: Frederick Hirsch <hirsch@fjhirsch.com>
- CC: www-xkms@w3.org, mike.just@entrust.com
This wording looks fine to me. -Yassir. Frederick Hirsch wrote: > We have revised the wording of requirements regarding SOAP 1.1 versus > 1.2 as follows. Please indicate if there is an issue with this wording. > > Is it acceptable in 2.1.5 to refer to "Candidate Recommendation" > instead of Recommendation, for consistency with 2.1.4? > --- > > 2.1.4) > The specification MUST provide a binding to XML Protocol (SOAP 1.2), > provided that the SOAP 1.2 specification has reached Candidate > Recommendation (CR) status prior to the XKMS WG completing its work. In > this case the specification SHOULD also provide a binding to SOAP 1.1 > (for interoperability purposes). > > If SOAP 1.2 has not reached CR status then the specification MUST > provide a binding to SOAP 1.1. > > The XKMS specification SOAP binding is required to profile SOAP for > interoperability, including use of document literal encoding. > > [ SOAP ] [XMLProtocol] [List(Blair Dillaway)]. > > 2.1.5) > XKMS services MUST implement SOAP 1.2 once that specification has > achieved Candidate Recommendation status.
Received on Thursday, 16 May 2002 14:11:40 UTC