- From: Dave Winer <dave@userland.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:27:39 -0700
- To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, <eamon.otuathail@clipcode.com>
- Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
This is so simple. 1. HTTP is a good way to do SOAP. 2. If there's no header to go by, a router has to read the payload. 3. In a normal HTTP server much of the traffic is not SOAP. 4. In the real world, which I hope is what we're talking about, you can't run the payload of a request through an XML parser. It's a waste of CPU cycles. 5. So we built systems up from SOAPAction. Shoot us. 6. Don't break us. 7. Thanks. Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org> To: <eamon.otuathail@clipcode.com> Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 1:59 PM Subject: Re: XML Protocol: Proposals to address SOAPAction header > Eamon O'Tuathail wrote: > > > > >> It is important that the SOAPAction URI be preserved between gateways. > > > > SOAPAction relates to SOAP over **HTTP** - why should a different binding to > > forced to carry it when it certainly is not needed by this other binding? > > Exactly my point. If the syntax were not a new HTTP header, but instead > a parameter on the media type, then it would be much more easily > *considered* reusable between protocols. > > MB >
Received on Monday, 11 June 2001 17:28:42 UTC