- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 17:44:39 -0400 (EDT)
- To: mnot@mnot.net (Mark Nottingham)
- Cc: John_Barton@hpl.hp.com (John J. Barton), andrewl@microsoft.com (Andrew Layman), xml-dist-app@w3.org, dave@scripting.com
> Without going into REST/no-REST issues, I think these directives can > be applied, as they would be considered advisory; if an intermediary > has other knowledge with greater precedence (such as out-of-band > configuration, or explicit targeting by a header) that it should > perform an operation, it can. They're there more to protect from > devices that would act without a specific directive, which is allowed > by the HTTP. But an entirely opaque content type would (theoretically) ensure that only SOAP processors could transform the message. That's the concern here, right? I think application/soap does just that. Are you aware of any intermediary that transforms "application/*" bodies? I'll have to give the no-cache issue more thought. I haven't seen it used with POST, so I'm not sure how or why it's important in that context. But I currently don't see a need to say anything beyond what HTTP already says about it. If somebody finds a good use of it over a non-SOAP POST, then it can also be used with a SOAP POST. MB
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2001 17:43:03 UTC