RE: Issue #12: HTTP Status Codes 500 v 200

Mark,

Mark Baker wrote: 

"In order for protocol A to be a layer on top of protocol B, the
interface to developers (i.e. a library) should expose only protocol A
semantics.  With using SOAP over HTTP, you as a developer are using HTTP
semantics (specifically POST).  They are exposed to you.  Contrast this
with HTTP over TCP - do you as an HTTP developer know or care when an IP
packet arrives out of order?  You don't, because HTTP *is* a layer on
top of TCP.  SOAP is not a layer on top of HTTP."

SOAP does not really talk about APIs as far as I understand. There is no
reason 
why an API could not be written as the interface to a SOAP processor or a
message
service handler (MSH to borrow an ebXML TRP term) that does not expose the
HTTP POST. 
I think the way APIs are exposed is a poor way to decide if a protocol is a
layer. 
I think SOAP is a protocol layer in its own right that happens to have a
HTTP binding defined (among potentially many other bindings). Incidentally I
think ebXML TRP is 
a protocol layer also built on top of SOAP and MIME.

Based on this I do think HTTP status codes finding its way into SOAP is
disturbing.