- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 17:40:58 -0400
- To: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
- Cc: "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 11:28:31PM -0400, Rich Salz wrote: > > That's incorrect. As an example of how the binding doesn't treat HTTP > > as a transport protocol, consider that SOAP faults are returned using > > HTTP error codes. > > In SOAP 1.2, which is what I assumed we're talking about, they're not. Sure they are; "[...] successful responses are sent with status code 200, and failures are indicated as 4XX or 5XX." -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part2-20030624/#httpuse Moreover, the sentence preceding that one identifies the binding as a transfer binding, not a transport binding; "This binding of SOAP to HTTP is intended to make appropriate use of HTTP as an application protocol." ... so I'm not sure why the WS-Addressing WG is taking the position that this one aspect of the binding would be transport-specific while the rest is transfer-specific. *shrug* Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com
Received on Sunday, 4 September 2005 21:39:11 UTC