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

Re: SOAP 1.2?

To: Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: SOAP 1.2?
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 01:02:59 +0100
Cc: 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: <> <> <> <>
Sender: owner-atom-protocol@xxxxxxxxxxxx

* Tim Bray wrote:
>>> I'm not sure we could normatively cite SOAP 1.1 if we wanted to :/
>>
>> I don't see any problem with citing a W3C Note
>
>Well, one thing is for sure: that document is guaranteed stable. -Tim

Aha, that's why it says "This document is a work in progress and may be
updated, replaced, or rendered obsolete by other documents at any time".
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@xxxxxxxxxxxx · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: SOAP 1.2?
  - From: Robert Sayre

References:
- Re: SOAP 1.2? (was: issue: SOAP requirements)
  - From: Dare Obasanjo
- Re: SOAP 1.2?
  - From: Robert Sayre
- Re: SOAP 1.2?
  - From: Walter Underwood
- Re: SOAP 1.2?
  - From: Tim Bray

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