- From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 15:04:35 -0400
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org] > Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 1:57 PM > To: Champion, Mike > Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org > Subject: Re: Do RESTifarians want anything from the WSA that > they don't > already have? > > > For sure, there's all sorts of new extensions we can > identify, including many that people have been talking about > all along; transactions, > conversations, reliability, routing, etc... Dare I hope that you would find the SOAP 1.2 header extension mechanism a Web-friendly means of communicating the state of transactions, conversations, reliability, etc.? GET's are obviously going to be a bit of a problem, For example, how does one communicate the security information that one might put in a SOAP header on a GET operation? I guess the URI could encode the header, maybe hashing or otherwise compressing things like namespace URIs that tend to be long .... Thoughts?
Received on Thursday, 1 August 2002 15:04:39 UTC