- From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
- Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 12:31:38 -0400
- To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- cc: "Keith Moore" <moore@cs.utk.edu>, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@akamai.com>, ietf@ietf.org, xml-dist-app@w3.org
> It is not for the benefit of SOAP - it is for the benefit of HTTP which > is why it is expressed in a manner that is digestible by HTTP. it's not for the benefit of HTTP, as HTTP already has a suitable dispatch mechanism - namely, the request URI. it *might* be for the benefit of vendors who want to sell upgraded HTTP servers or client libraries that support the new feature, and force customers to upgrade if they want to use SOAP. but I don't see that as an adequate justification. > Your argument could equally well be applied to media types media types aren't intended for dispatching on the server side. however, the use of media types with HTTP applications brings up a very similar issue - if the content-type is orthogonal to the request, and the server can potentially handle the same request in different formats, fine. but if the part of the request is communicated by the content-type, this makes it impossible to transmit a properly-typed service request 'as data' without implicitly requesting the semantics of that service. Keith
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2001 12:32:13 UTC