W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > July 2001

Re: Binding example discussion

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:24:54 -0400
Message-Id: <200107172124.RAA13138@mail3.magma.ca>
To: XML Distributed Applications List <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
My comments;

"If a SOAP envelope is not to be conveyed in the HTTP request, the request method used should be 'GET' (section 
9.3)."

If SOAP isn't being used on the request, how do we know that GET semantics is what is desired?  I suggest removing 
that point.

"If a SOAP envelope is to be conveyed in the HTTP response, it should be the complete content of the message body, 
as defined by RFC2616, section 6, with a '200 OK' status code (section 10.2.1)."

I've stated my position on this before, and will restate for emphasis.  I believe it's dangerous to require only a 200 
response code, and would strongly recommend that my suggestions in [1] be followed.  Can I ask for a pointer to where 
the decision to use only 200 was made?

"If a SOAP envelope is not to be conveyed in the HTTP response, the response status code generated should be '204 
No Content' (section 10.2.5)."

Suggest changing that to "If neither a SOAP envelope, nor any other information is to be conveyed in the HTTP 
response, the response status code generated should be '204 No Content' (section 10.2.5).".  I don't believe the WG 
wants to prevent other information coming back on a response, right?  Alternately, I'd suggest removing that sentence 
entirely as it would appear to fall outside SOAP's domain.

"Additionally, implementations may make the following available:"

I'd also ask that the list of services be explicitly labelled as non-exhaustive.  New HTTP based services will continue to 
be defined over time.

 [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Jun/0017.html

MB
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2001 17:24:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:02 GMT