Re: SOAP 1.2?

[Janne Jalkanen <jalkanen@xxxxxxxxx>]

+1 to this and general SOAP 1.2 instead of SOAP 1.1.

If no AtomActionHeader, then 1.2 should be okay, since all
bandwidth-aware systems would be likely to implement XOP.

Though... Is there any way to know whether a given SOAP endpoint
supports XOP?  Or is it mandatory in 1.2?  I'm not sure...

(If you wonder why XOP is important, it's because I still cringe at
the idea of shipping a 6-bit encoding over a fully 8-bit channel.  It
really hurts on mobile phones...)

/Janne

On Apr 1, 2005 10:59 PM, Bill de hÓra <bill@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Dare Obasanjo wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> As far as I got:
>
> <http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceReplaceSoapActionWithSoapHeader>
>
> nothing much back from from the wg, Rob asked about using http-request-line:
>
>   <http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg00660.html>
>
> if you wanted to work that in, I'll clean it up.
>
> cheers
> Bill
>
>