- From: David Crowley <dcrowley@scitegic.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 16:58:48 -0700
- To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
At 11:48 AM 7/24/2001, Mark Baker wrote: > > The list of differences is completely ridiculous. I can write > > tunnelling-oriented SOAP right now, and the only difference between what > > I use and your "application semantic" binding is whether faults come > > back using 500 or 200. > >And the use of port 80, at a minimum. There could very well have >been other major differences, as my tunnel-binding wasn't completely >specified as you may have noticed. I didn't think port 80 was a crucial part of the HTTP protocol, it's just the default if no specific port is specified. The HTTP protocol works fine over many other ports, the binding shouldn't be so specific that it fails if its not port 80. The same binding _should_ work for HTTPS which by default is carried over a different port. I'm scared that this binding between SOAP and HTTP youre suggesting is getting wound up so tight you will never be able to separate the two. David
Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2001 19:58:57 UTC