- From: David Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 12:22:06 -0800
- To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
I think it should be called the "SOAP HTTP Binding" (omitting the "default" qualifier) -- the nature of the optionality of the binding is specified in the nature of those things described in SOAP Part 2, and I think adding "default" to the HTTP description is confusing. ............................................ David C. Fallside, IBM Ext Ph: 530.477.7169 Int Ph: 544.9665 fallside@us.ibm.com |---------+----------------------------> | | Christopher | | | Ferris | | | <chris.ferris@sun| | | .com> | | | Sent by: | | | xml-dist-app-requ| | | est@w3.org | | | | | | | | | 03/22/2002 04:02 | | | AM | | | | |---------+----------------------------> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com> | | cc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM@Lotus, xml-dist-app@w3.org | | Subject: Re: Clarifying optionality of HTTP binding | | | | | >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| typo: s/me/may/ also, haven't we been calling this the "default" HTTP binding? [1]. Shouldn't we be consistent in calling it that? Cheers, Chris Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: > Done :) > > Henrik > > >><proposed> >>"The purpose of the SOAP HTTP binding is to provide a binding >>of SOAP to >>HTTP. It is important to note that use of the SOAP HTTP binding is >>optional and that nothing precludes the specification of different >>bindings to other protocols, or indeed to define other >>bindings to HTTP. >>Because of the optionality of using the SOAP HTTP binding, it is NOT a >>requirement to implement it as part of a SOAP node. A node >>that does correctly >>and completely implement the HTTP binding me to be said to >>"conform to the >>SOAP 1.2 HTTP binding."" >></proposed> >> > >
Received on Friday, 22 March 2002 15:41:08 UTC