- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 14:30:46 -0800
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 05:47:04PM -0500, Mark Baker wrote: > > > 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. Whoa; where was it said that #2 was about SOAP-requests-in-HTTP-responses (did I miss it)? -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 2 February 2002 18:20:26 UTC