Re: CR112, CR144, and everything

On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 15:29 +0100, Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:
> Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> >> Isn't the text you quote above already covered elsewhere (e.g. 5.10.4.xxx)? Can't we simply drop it?
> >>     
> >
> > I don't believe so since we only provide mapping to SOAP
> > Request-Response in 5.10.4. IMO, 5.10.4 should cover SOAP Response as well, thus my question.
> >   
> Don't we cover SOAP-Response in 5.10.4.2 ?

Oops, correct. Somehow I missed that despite looking 10 times that
section yesterday. Only the service mentions
"application/x-www-form-urlencoded", is that intentional? Seems to me
that this applies to the WSDL input message in all cases.

> >> But not to the exact same Req-Resp MEP! (although they share the same 
> >> URI and, probably?, the same behaviour) See my earlier message [3].
> >>     
> >
> > ok. Btw, we will link to the latest SOAP 1.2 REC, ie the one that will
> > contain the revised SOAP Request-Response MEP.
> >   
> Could this break our implementations?

I don't think it can break existing implementations but it does add the
202 return code into the picture. Our test suite already handles it and
as far as I understand SOAP implementations go fine with it.

Philippe