[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SOAP 1.2?

To: Dare Obasanjo <kpako@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: SOAP 1.2?
From: Robert Sayre <mint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 18:29:48 -0500
Cc: "Bill de \"hÓra\"" <bill@xxxxxxxxxx>, Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@xxxxxxx>, Joe Gregorio <joe.gregorio@xxxxxxxxx>, Janne Jalkanen <jalkanen@xxxxxxxxx>, Tatsuhiko Miyagawa <miyagawa@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, jasnell@xxxxxxxxx, atom-protocol@xxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/>
List-id: <atom-protocol.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:atom-protocol-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <>
Reply-to: mint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-atom-protocol@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Windows/20041103)

Dare Obasanjo wrote:

Given that SOAP 1.1 is widely adopted while SOAP 1.2 is not [and it is unclear if it will ever be] I'd vote for the WG to choose SOAP 1.1

Point taken, but there are problems with SOAP 1.1 as well. For instance, it's not a W3C-Rec.

"This document is a NOTE made available by the W3C for discussion only. Publication of this Note by W3C indicates no endorsement by W3C."

http://www.w3.org/TR/soap/

I'm not sure we could normatively cite SOAP 1.1 if we wanted to :/

Robert Sayre

Follow-Ups:
- Re: SOAP 1.2?
  - From: Walter Underwood

References:
- Re: SOAP 1.2? (was: issue: SOAP requirements)
  - From: Dare Obasanjo

Prev by Date: Re: SOAP 1.2?
Next by Date: Re: SOAP 1.2?
Previous by thread: Re: SOAP 1.2? (was: issue: SOAP requirements)
Next by thread: Re: SOAP 1.2?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread