- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:26:44 -0500
- To: Scott Nichol <snichol@computer.org>
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
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 Thursday, 18 December 2003 21:26:32 UTC