- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 16:38:13 -0400 (EDT)
- To: peter.hendry@capeclear.com (Pete Hendry)
- Cc: mnot@mnot.net (Mark Nottingham), xml-dist-app@w3.org
> I understand what you mean and, after following the links on a previous post about the previous threads on this subject, > I'm afraid I fall into the 200 camp. I don't think HTTP should be an integral part of SOAP. This is all covered in the thread I pointed out. I encourage you to read it in its entirety. > I think the previous thread said it all, there are 2 distinct camps in this argument and there's not much point in > rehashing it. There are two camps, because there are two different uses of SOAP over HTTP. One use inherits HTTP's application semantics (because it is an application protocol, not a transport protocol as you have said), and the other doesn't; it uses it as tunnel over which to carry other protocols. Something I don't believe that has been said in this discussion, is that for the tunnel camp, it probably doesn't matter so much which response code will be used because HTTP is abstracted away. But for the semantic-inheritance camp, it is critical. Therefore, not using 200 is probably the best design decision if a single SOAP/HTTP binding is to be created. MB
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2001 16:35:39 UTC