Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding

Ack, sorry, I don't know what happened there - it was sent prematurely.

What I meant to say was:

Do you agree that the example I gave was just one useful way to use SOAP with HTTP, and that it differs from the tunnelling approach?

Do you believe that WG should provide bindings to support this type of use of SOAP with application protocols?  Or do you believe the WG should only define tunnel bindings?

My view: a tunnel binding is a special case of a binding that reuses the semantics of the application protocol.  Therefore, if only one binding is to be defined, it should not be the tunnel one.

MB

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Salz <rsalz@zolera.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 16:22:06 -0400
To: Mark Baker <mbaker@myblackberry.net>
Subject: Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding

> Do you agree that the example I gave is *one*

Sure.  But as should be obvious, I seem to have a block and am unable to
extrapolate.  So you call it one and I call it "the".

Have a good week/end.
	/r$

-- 
Zolera Systems, Your Key to Online Integrity
Securing Web services: XML, SOAP, Signatures, Encryption
http://www.zolera.com

--
Mark Baker, Ottawa Canada. (613)261-5172
PLEASE RESPOND ONLY TO DISTOBJ@ACM.ORG

Received on Friday, 20 July 2001 17:05:30 UTC