- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 17:47:04 -0500 (EST)
- To: mnot@mnot.net (Mark Nottingham)
- Cc: ylafon@w3.org (Yves Lafon), noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com (Noah Mendelsohn), xml-dist-app@w3.org
> > Hmm. #2 uses an envelope on a response that presumably isn't a fault. > > AFAIK, we haven't defined any meaning for this. > > Not sure if I see the distinction (maybe I've been out of SOAP-land > too long); #2 is just a SOAP response to a HTTP GET. The binding > would have to be defined, yes, but I don't know that this is a > special kind of response, is it? If it's used to try to tunnel requests in as a response, then it's definitely "special" IMO. Some protocols explicitly support this (such as SMTP TURN), but most don't. HTTP doesn't. A response is a response and should only carry faults, unless it was an opaque encapsulated message that wasn't intended for processing. > An argument could be made that people will be forced to misuse the > Web architecture until a GET binding is provided, by using POST to > make requests with no side effects, thereby meaning that 133 isn't > addressed by just defining a POST binding. I'm not sure such an > argument would stick, but it's worth a try ;) Until the WG comes to agree on what "web architecture" means, I think it's the best we can do. And if you thought *this* was fun, the WSAG is gonna be a blast! 8-) MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Saturday, 2 February 2002 17:44:54 UTC