- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:11:42 -0500
- To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
- Cc: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>, www-ws-desc@w3.org, xml-dist-app@w3.org
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 02:47:01PM -0500, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote: > Hmm. So an interesting question is whether the HTTP binding ever sends a > 202. Ah, good point. It's unfortunate we (XMLP) chose to declare the state transition on "200" rather than "2xx", but IIRC, there was considerable debate about this point, as those promoting "protocol independence" feared that exposing too much of HTTP to the application was a bad idea. Support for 2xx used to be there[1], but was removed and replaced by [2] as a result (IIRC). Sweet, sweet irony. 8-) [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-part2-20011217/#NFDC [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-soap12-part2-20030507/#httpoptionality Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Friday, 12 November 2004 21:10:24 UTC