Re: Bad link in specs [was: SOAP 1.1 w3c Recommendation ??]

+1


On Dec 18, 2003, at 6:26 PM, Mark Baker wrote:

>
> Hmm, that's new.  I remember having this same discussion with Yves a
> few months ago when we agreed, IIRC, that it was good that /TR/SOAP
> didn't redirect to SOAP 1.2, unlike /TR/html which does redirect to
> XHTML.  The difference is due to the public meaning of "/TR/SOAP", as
> determined by how people use it, is that it identifies the SOAP 1.1
> spec.
>
> Bug!
>
> Mark.
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 05:42:26PM -0500, Scott Nichol wrote:
>>
>> Please forgive me for barging in on this list.
>>
>> I am not sure to whom I should bring attention that the specs, namely 
>> the Primer (http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part0/) and Messaging 
>> Framework (http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/) contain the same bad 
>> link for SOAP 1.1.  Both point the user to 
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/, which *was* SOAP 1.1, but which is now 
>> the Messaging Framework.  SOAP 1.1 can, in fact, be found at [1] 
>> below (which I found in an old post to this list by Martin Gudgin).
>>
>> Amusingly, the document at [2] below also has bad links for SOAP 1.1.
>>
>> Scott Nichol
>>
>>> If you have to work with SOAP 1.1 then the Note[1] you found IS the
>>> latest spec. You might also take a look at the WS-I Basic Profile[2]
>>> which clarifies some of the ambiguities in SOAP 1.1 ( amongst other
>>> things ).
>>>
>>> Gudge
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-SOAP-20000508/
>>> [2]
>>> http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/Basic/2003-06/BasicProfile-1.0-BdAD.html
>
> -- 
> Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca