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

Re: Issue 133, and permitting no body

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 15:33:25 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200201302033.PAA13392@markbaker.ca>
To: jacek@systinet.com (Jacek Kopecky)
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
>  Mark,
>  I'm not sure what you mean by "web architecture", because I 
> thought we have yet to see that. 8-)

Heh.  Well, linked off our home page is this;

http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Architecture

which includes some discussion about why GET is so special to web
architecture.

>  Anyway, from SOAP-centric point of view, a transport binding 
> specifies means of getting SOAP messages from one node to 
> another.
>  I think that your proposal (of making the Body optional) should 
> come from a use case independent of any particular protocol 
> binding, not from some unusual but possible use of GET method in 
> HTTP.
>  Do you have any use case for Body-less messages that is 
> independent of HTTP?

Sure.  How about FTP RETR, IMAP LIST, NNTP ARTICLE, or any other
idempotent retrieval method from any application protocol?  A SOAP
binding to any of these protocols may necessitate the need to do
such a thing, unless you only want to tunnel.

I don't know about the practical implications of including a body with
all of those protocols, but it's possible that some don't disallow
bodies like HTTP.

Anyhow, I brought this up because I thought it could help address issue
133.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2002 15:31:25 GMT

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