Re: Issue 133, and permitting no body

I just wrote;
> On the other hand, my proposal allows GET semantics to be extended (but
> not fundamentally changed) by the meaning of SOAP headers, as they would
> be with HTTP headers.  For example, we'd be able to do mandatory GET by
> using mustUnderstand.  Or we'd be able to route GET requests with
> WS-Routing (or whatever).  The same goes for almost any other header
> (except those meant for non-idempotent or unsafe methods) that may be
> defined in the future.

Actually, I should qualify the mustUnderstand statement; it would only
work if a web server distinguished between GET and GET+body to apps.
Otherwise we'd need a new method that meant the same as GET, except
for this extension.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com