Re: SOAP 1.2?

[Dare Obasanjo <kpako@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Paul Hoffman <phoffman@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Our very-response AD sez:
> 
> At 6:55 AM -0500 3/24/05, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> >Sure, go ahead and normatively reference 1.1, but
> please be sure to
> >explain why 1.2 isn't being referenced.  It would
> also be nice if words
> >were included to explain what's needed to move to
> 1.2 in the future.  In
> >that case, maybe 1.2 should be listed as an
> informative reference.
> >
> >I'm already dealing with someone who's complaining
> that the BEEP/SOAP
> >RFC (3288) doesn't reference 1.2.  I'd like to
> avoid having to deal with
> >similar objections in atompub if at all possible.

Is anybody planning to write a Pace cleaning up the
sections on SOAP support in the spec [and perhaps
adding a non-normative WSDL]? 

If there are no takers I guess I could give it a shot. 

THINGS TO DO IF I BECOME AN EVIL OVERLORD #222
I reserve the right to execute any henchmen who appear to be a little too intelligent, powerful, or devious. However if I do so, I will not at some subsequent point shout "Why am I surrounded by these incompetent fools?!"


		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Messenger 
Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. 
http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest