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 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:06 GMT