W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > April 2006

Re: ROR proposal issue #1 (aka SC1)

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 17:27:45 -0400
Message-ID: <c70bc85d0604041427p7e3fa2cv8e156442e95550b7@mail.gmail.com>
To: "noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "michael.mahan@nokia.com" <michael.mahan@nokia.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org

On 4/4/06, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Mark Baker writes:
>
> > Issue: Think it's perfectly fine if a SOAP response is returned
> > on a 202 response. What's most important to indicate, I believe,
> > is that because of the semantics of 202, that any SOAP envelope
> > would not represent the results of processing the inbound SOAP
> > message.  It only indicates an intermediate result, like an ack.
>
> I'm a little surprised by how you phrased this.  I think we're agreed that
> a 202 certainly indicates that the response does not denote >completion<
> of processing of the request, and indeed in general a 202 is by reading
> silent as to whether any processing has been started or attempted.  So far
> so good.  What surprises me is that your text can be read as insisting
> that any response have nothing to do with the message in question, and I
> don't read the HTTP RFC that way.  My impression is that any ack or the
> like should specifically be in relation to the request received. Do you
> agree?

Yes, I agree.  That comment was sent many weeks ago, before discussion
of partial processing began, so my phrasing didn't take into account
the difference between incomplete processing and no processing.

Mark.
--
Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.       http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Tuesday, 4 April 2006 21:28:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 22:28:13 UTC