- From: Ray Whitmer <rayw@netscape.com>
- Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 14:16:25 -0700
- To: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>, Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>, XML Protocol Comments <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com wrote: > Mark Nottingham writes: > >>> However, the design shouldn't address this in the 'core' >>> intermediary definition - it's too dependent on the >>> transport binding and influenced by the application. >> > > Many applications will want to approach XP in a binding-independent > manner. I think it is therefore important to have a clean set of rules > for the proper use and implications of headers/intermediaries, independent > of the binding. Indeed, the role of the binding should be to provide > implementation of those semantics. There is not that much difference between headers and other orthogonal attachments. This is the great argument why attachments should not be left up to the binding. Even though SOAP may try to make them out of bounds, applications need them, intermediaries need to pass them through or may need to manipulate them, and both require a clean set of rules for dealing with them that is not tied to a particular binding. Ray Whitmer rayw@netscape.com
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2001 17:11:57 UTC