- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 22:00:53 -0500
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: fallside@us.ibm.com (David Fallside), jacek@systinet.com (Jacek Kopecky), noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com (Noah Mendelsohn), skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Stuart Williams), www-ws-arch@w3.org, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Mark Baker writes: >> where the meaning of the message transfer is inherited from HTTP Not to belabor a long-running disagreement, but this is the essence of where we part company. I would instead say: "where we take care to use HTTP in a manner appropriate to the message" First the message exists, per the SOAP rules (I.e. there is an Infoset before we even talk about what transport to use.) Then, we can decide whether HTTP is an appropriate vehicle for moving this sort of message (maybe it has GET semantics and we don't have a GET binding, so we don't use HTTP). Then we can decide to use HTTP in the manner it's intended to be used (e.g. 200 for success, but not for failure.) SOAP chapter 2 makes clear that the meaning of the message comes for the QNames of elements in the envelope. If we write our bindings carefully and use them well, then both levels will be in sync. Surely that does not mean that SOAP inherits from HTTP. Even with ordinary Web pages, it's not a Get because I use HTTP. I use HTTP because I want to do a Get. It's the same with SOAP. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2002 22:20:58 UTC