- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 10:50:56 -0500
- To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Hey Henrik, On 3/29/06, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com> wrote: > Mark, > > I have to disagree with you on this point. As to the exact part of Web architecture we are discussing I think you are referring to the principle that first class entities must be identified by URIs. Actually, no, my concern was that the ultimate recipient of the message wasn't identified by the value of the Request-URI. > This is exactly the purpose of the SOAP intermediary model. As such the SOAP intermediary model exactly fits this Web principle: SOAP headers can be addressed to named intermediary roles and faults are identified by the issuing node. If that's all that was going on here, I would agree, as I see definite value in being able to address (indirectly) intermediaries. But SOAP headers - wsa:To in particular - are not being used to address intermediaries, they're being used to address the ultimate recipient of the message. And, as I discovered after some investigation, and much to my embarassment (since I should have caught it while a member of the XMLP WG) this was in part due to an ambiguity in the SOAP 1.2 spec itself. See my previous message for the details. FWIW, I do agree that SOAP 1.1 can be used in a manner completely consistent with Web architecture. And were it not for this problem, I would agree that SOAP 1.2 could be too ... and in fact I said so many times, before I discovered this problem. Cheers, Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Wednesday, 29 March 2006 15:51:13 UTC