- From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 12:37:09 -0800
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: Scott Nichol <snichol@computer.org>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
+1 On Dec 18, 2003, at 6:26 PM, Mark Baker wrote: > > Hmm, that's new. I remember having this same discussion with Yves a > few months ago when we agreed, IIRC, that it was good that /TR/SOAP > didn't redirect to SOAP 1.2, unlike /TR/html which does redirect to > XHTML. The difference is due to the public meaning of "/TR/SOAP", as > determined by how people use it, is that it identifies the SOAP 1.1 > spec. > > Bug! > > Mark. > > On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 05:42:26PM -0500, Scott Nichol wrote: >> >> Please forgive me for barging in on this list. >> >> I am not sure to whom I should bring attention that the specs, namely >> the Primer (http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part0/) and Messaging >> Framework (http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/) contain the same bad >> link for SOAP 1.1. Both point the user to >> http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/, which *was* SOAP 1.1, but which is now >> the Messaging Framework. SOAP 1.1 can, in fact, be found at [1] >> below (which I found in an old post to this list by Martin Gudgin). >> >> Amusingly, the document at [2] below also has bad links for SOAP 1.1. >> >> Scott Nichol >> >>> If you have to work with SOAP 1.1 then the Note[1] you found IS the >>> latest spec. You might also take a look at the WS-I Basic Profile[2] >>> which clarifies some of the ambiguities in SOAP 1.1 ( amongst other >>> things ). >>> >>> Gudge >>> >>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-SOAP-20000508/ >>> [2] >>> http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/Basic/2003-06/BasicProfile-1.0-BdAD.html > > -- > Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Friday, 2 January 2004 15:37:16 UTC