- From: Edwin Ortega <ortegae@wns.net>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:28:09 -0800
- To: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>, "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org>
- Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com> To: "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org> Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 7:44 AM Subject: Re: One-way messaging in SOAP 1.2 > > > Yves Lafon wrote: > > <snip/> > >>NB, separate issue for editors: there seems to be an error here > >>and elsewhere in the part2 spec, the single-request-response > >>tmep URI shouldn't belong to the domain www.example.com, but rather > >>to the w3c.org domain, no? Isn't the HTTP binding intended to be > >>normative? > >> > > > > The fact that a URI of an example is in the example.com domain or w3c.org > > domain don't change the normative/non-normative of the section, the > > constraint being that all URI in w3.org should be deferencable. > > > I don't think that we can define normative URIs belonging > to the www.example.com domain as that domain is reserved > for use in specifications and as such is unmanaged. If we're > describing a normative HTTP binding, that defines URIs that > are to be used to identify a resource such as a definition > for a MEP, then the domain of that URI needs to be one that > the W3C manages. > > I don't think that the URIs we're defining for the definition > of the single-request-response MEP is meant as an example, > I believe that it is meant as a normative definition that can > be referenced by other/future binding specifications. > > > > > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2002 12:30:56 UTC