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 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 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:29 UTC