W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > February 2002

Re: Issue 133, and permitting no body

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 17:47:04 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200202022247.RAA15804@markbaker.ca>
To: mnot@mnot.net (Mark Nottingham)
Cc: ylafon@w3.org (Yves Lafon), noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com (Noah Mendelsohn), xml-dist-app@w3.org
> > Hmm. #2 uses an envelope on a response that presumably isn't a fault.
> > AFAIK, we haven't defined any meaning for this.
> Not sure if I see the distinction (maybe I've been out of SOAP-land
> too long); #2 is just a SOAP response to a HTTP GET. The binding
> would have to be defined, yes, but I don't know that this is a
> special kind of response, is it?

If it's used to try to tunnel requests in as a response, then it's
definitely "special" IMO.  Some protocols explicitly support this (such
as SMTP TURN), but most don't.  HTTP doesn't.  A response is a response
and should only carry faults, unless it was an opaque encapsulated
message that wasn't intended for processing.

> An argument could be made that people will be forced to misuse the
> Web architecture until a GET binding is provided, by using POST to
> make requests with no side effects, thereby meaning that 133 isn't
> addressed by just defining a POST binding. I'm not sure such an
> argument would stick, but it's worth a try ;)

Until the WG comes to agree on what "web architecture" means, I think
it's the best we can do.

And if you thought *this* was fun, the WSAG is gonna be a blast! 8-)

Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Saturday, 2 February 2002 17:44:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:18 UTC