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

RE: [i95, i22] - Proposal for clarifying use of SOAPAction

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 11:57:10 -0700
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D0344177E@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Jeffrey Kay" <jkay@ENGENIA.COM>, "Dick Brooks" <dick@8760.com>, "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>, "Jake Savin" <jake@userland.com>, "Painter, Philip" <Philip.Painter@compaq.com>, "Daniel Barclay" <Daniel.Barclay@digitalfocus.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Remember that SOAP is a protocol - it is not a server API which makes
SOAP fundamentally different from CGI-scripts, server modules, servlets
etc. Comparing SOAP to CGI scripts makes no sense - it would be
perfectly legitimate to implement a SOAP processor as a CGI script. This
has already been brought up on this thread [10].

It is correct that we don't want implementation details like whether
something is implemented using CGI or not to be exposed but again, SOAP
is a protocol - it describes a wire format for what a message looks

HTTP GET requests have the property that *all* parameters are expressed
either as part of the URI (after the "?" mark) or within the HTTP header
fields. The semantics of GET is not application based - GET is defined
by HTTP to mean something very specific namely "give me a representation
of yourself". 

The definition of POST is slightly more complex. What SOAP effectively
does is to provide a useful mechanism for describing parameters in XML
rather than in HTTP header fields but as it is still an HTTP request, we
have to follow HTTP semantics.

Note btw that SOAP doesn't require that SOAP requests are followed by
responses - the HTTP binding in SOAP says nothing like that.


[10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Apr/0181.html
Received on Monday, 7 May 2001 15:06:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:13 UTC