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

Re: SOAP 1.2?

To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: SOAP 1.2?
From: Robert Sayre <mint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:47:09 -0500
Cc: Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@xxxxxxx>, 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)

Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

* 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".

That's kind of a scary sentence, but I think it comes down to what's meant by "updated, replaced, or rendered obsolete". RFCs can be updated or obsoleted, so what's meant by "replaced"?

Secondly, is the issue related the to inclusion of a URI in the references, or a citation in general?

Robert Sayre

Follow-Ups:
- Re: SOAP 1.2?
  - From: Paul Hoffman

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
- Re: SOAP 1.2?
  - From: Bjoern Hoehrmann

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