On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 09:09:31PM -0500, Champion, Mike wrote: > > Whoa, where'd that last part come from? Reference please. I agree > > that protocol independance is a good thing, but not such that there's > > no semantic difference between using HTTP and SMTP, for example. Of > > couse there's a difference; they're different applications. > > > > Whoa yourself :-) If a SOAP message has a semantic difference if it is > transported (I use the term deliberately) over SMTP than if it is POSTed > over HTTP (or send on a floppy disk by sneakernet), then some deep > requirement of WSA (and SOAP 1.2, IIRC) is not being met. Do you recall the recent xml-dist-app discussion about the semantics of a SOAP message including the method of the underlying protocol? Noah wrote; 'I think it's useful and appropriate to separate the term "message" from "envelope". I think the destination and web method are surely part of the message.' -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2003Feb/0005 Which says to me that sending a SOAP envelope with HTTP PUT means something different than sending it with POST (and any other application protocol method, for that matter). MB -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysisReceived on Wednesday, 26 February 2003 00:14:51 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:15 GMT