- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 20:49:02 -0700
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@Sun.COM>, "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
On Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 11:45:34PM -0400, Mark Baker wrote: > > 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. OK. I meant "come up with a Fault or Module" by 'a', or possibly just leave the door open. Sounds like we're on the same track. > > > 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. Using 'presence' implies 'absence'. 'substance' is important, because someone might infer the Fault type, presence of a Fault as opposed to the presence of a SOAP Envelope, etc. The editors can probably step in here... ;) Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 30 September 2001 23:49:04 UTC