W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > December 2005

Re: Response envelope optional vs. response optional

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:35:44 -0500
Message-ID: <c70bc85d0512212135y230cea4fw5a16f33b8d6751ea@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Cc: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org

On 12/21/05, David Hull <dmh@tibco.com> wrote:
>  The distinction being made is between HTTP responses that contain SOAP
> envelopes and those that don't.  Both are clearly possible on the wire.
> Whether that distinction is semantically relevant other than on the wire is
> a separate issue.  I would prefer to talk about that issue

Me too.  It's what I was talking about.  I believe the distinction to
be irrelevant.

> rather than what
> a "SOAP response" is or isn't, though of course I realize that agreeing on a
> common definition of "SOAP response" ought to aid that discussion.

Well, we know that a SOAP response is a SOAP message, and that a SOAP
message is defined as;

 "The basic unit of communication between SOAP nodes"
 -- http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/#encapsulation

which includes (amoungst other things) the HTTP envelope, at least
when the HTTP binding is used.

Mark.
--
Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.       http://www.markbaker.ca
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies  http://www.coactus.com
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2005 05:35:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:20 GMT