- From: Edwin Ortega <ortegae@wns.net>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 15:04:50 -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 9:51 AM Subject: Re: One-way messaging in SOAP 1.2 > Yves, > > There's nothing in the spec (part2) that suggests > that Section 7.1 is meant as merely an example of > a (T)MEP definition. Similarly, there is nothing in > the spec to suggest that the HTTP binding defined > in section 8 is intended to be an example, and it > references the URI that is identified as the URI > for the (T)MEP defined in section 7.1. > > Neither are examples, they should have w3c.org domain > scoped URIs. > > Cheers, > > Chris > > Yves Lafon wrote: > > > On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Edwin Ortega wrote: > > > > > >>>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. > >>> > > > > As I said it is for example, to have a real MEP definition that use URI in > > W3C workspace, URI will exist and be deferencable (like namespaces for > > instance). > > > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2002 14:07:39 UTC