- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 11:29:55 -0700
- To: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
[ changed the venue from tag to dist-app ] On Thursday, April 25, 2002, at 09:57 AM, Paul Prescod wrote: > > I think that a true solution to this problem would allow digital > signatures, authentication, transaction control, etc. to be encoded in > an HTTP message, no matter WHAT the method. > > *If users must choose between HTTP's features and SOAP's, then we have > failed (at least in part).* Are you familiar with "binding features"; i.e., the concept that things that are provided by the underlying protocol (e.g., HTTP authentication, etc.) can be used in this fashion, and exposed to SOAP nodes? > One nit is that I am not entirely comfortable with my own promotion of > the term "REST" in the sense that I think its meaning is likely more > subtle than most of us understand. I think the goal of this part of our > discussion is to make SOAP fully URI-compatible. I'd very much like to know what the overall goals are. From reading www-tag, my sense of what people want goes from "don't abuse HTTP" to "use URIs correctly" to "rearchitect SOAP completely so that it is RESTful". These are different things. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 14:30:00 UTC