- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 16:31:04 -0400
- To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Just wanted to add my 2c. On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 05:34:15PM +0100, Williams, Stuart wrote: > Ok... I was really wanting to understand you specific use "additional > parameters" in: > > <quote> > That is, it is not the case in HTTP that the entity-body always > can be used to carry additional parameters, it is up to the particular > method. > </quote> > > I was wanting to understand whether you were talking about the availability > of an entity-body on an HTTP request, or if you were talking about > constraints on what such an entity body is allowed to contain/be used for. I believe he meant the latter. POST's definition allows some wiggle room for introducing a hook for the SOAP processing model to dispatch from; that you can introduce a piece of software (dispatched from SOAPAction in 1.1 and the media type in the 1.2 default binding) to do the SOAP-specific processing on the headers, before handing it off to do the HTTP POST for the SOAP body. PUT's definition doesn't allow this wiggle room; what's in the body is the desired state of the resource identified by the Request-URI. Period. If we cared, we could do PUT with SOAP by defining a new HTTP method, "SOAP-PUT". It would provide the hook. MB -- Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred) Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. distobj@acm.org http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 16:35:58 UTC