- From: Blair Dillaway <blaird@exchange.microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 08:16:24 -0800
- To: "Shivaram Mysore" <Shivaram.Mysore@Sun.COM>, <www-xkms@w3.org>
I don't have a strong opinion either way. Reality is that anyone implementing XKMS in the near future is going to find it a lot easier to deploy a SOAP 1.1 solution. But, its not critical if we say it. -----Original Message----- From: Shivaram Mysore [mailto:Shivaram.Mysore@Sun.COM] Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 3:06 PM To: www-xkms@w3.org; Blair Dillaway > Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 08:42:59 -0800 > From: "Blair Dillaway" <blaird@exchange.microsoft.com> > To: <www-xkms@w3.org> >>>>> your message said >>> Part II: Protocol Bindings 1. Insert the below text under "Section 3. SOAP Binding" This section describes a mechanism for communicating the XKMS messages defined in Part 1 of this specification using the SOAP message protocol. XKMS implementers should support the SOAP message protocol for interoperability. When doing do, they MUST use the binding described herein. Bindings for both SOAP 1.2 [SOAP1.2-1][SOAP1.2-2] and SOAP 1.1[SOAP] protocols are specified. Use of SOAP 1.2 is recommended though implementers may prefer SOAP 1.1 in the near term for compatibility with existing tools and supporting infrastructure. <<<<< Shivaram: I don't think most the last sentence in the above is required. I would suggest that we just say "Use of SOAP 1.2 is recommended. For information purposes only, SOAP 1.1 bindings are specified." /Shivaram ________________________________________________________________________ ___ Shivaram H. Mysore <shivaram.mysore@sun.com> Software Engineer Co-Chair, W3C's XKMS WG Java Card Engineering http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS JavaSoft, Sun Microsystems Inc. Direct: (408)276-7524 Fax: (408)276-7608 http://java.sun.com/people/shivaram (Internal: http://mysore.sfbay/) ________________________________________________________________________ ___
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2002 11:16:26 UTC