- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 23:45:34 -0400 (EDT)
- To: mnot@mnot.net (Mark Nottingham)
- Cc: chris.ferris@Sun.COM (christopher ferris), xml-dist-app@w3.org ('xml-dist-app@w3.org')
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 10:44:30PM -0400, Mark Baker wrote: > > > a) Disallow the use of 3xx HTTP redirection, and rely on a SOAP > > > Module, Fault or similar to enable redirection. > > > > > > b) Carefully craft wording to the effect that SOAP clients should > > > assume user confirmation. > > > > > > In either case, we probably do need explanatory language in the spec. > > > I'm slightly in favour of 'a' at this point. > > > > Or c) expose resource redirection via SOAP. I think this has merit, > > as resource redirection is applicable with other application protocols, > > even if they currently have no notion of it. For example, SMTP could > > be extended with SOAP+redirection to support notifying clients of the > > change of somebody's email address (if known). > > How is that different from 'a'? a) is wordsmithing, while c) requires extending SOAP to support redirection, likely with a new fault code. Practically though, since there's not enough time to consider the implications of redirection, we'll probably end up with; d) wordsmith enough now to leave the door open for c) at a later date. 8-) > > I'd suggest simpler wording though; > > > > "A SOAP application MUST NOT use the HTTP response status code > > to infer the presence or absence of a SOAP response." > > > > This impacts my proposed text from my last message, hopefully > > in an obvious way. > > I'd change that to '...presence or substance of a SOAP envelope". Not "absence"? If we're going for completeness here, I think we need to say "presence or absence". I'm not sure what "substance" refers to. MB
Received on Sunday, 30 September 2001 23:43:21 UTC