- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 05:05:22 -0500 (EST)
- To: moreau@crf.canon.fr (Jean-Jacques Moreau)
- Cc: mnot@mnot.net (Mark Nottingham), marting@develop.com (Martin Gudgin), paulp@ActiveState.com (Paul Prescod), skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Williams Stuart), xml-dist-app@w3.org
SOAP, in a Web-architecture friendly view, has unfortunately chosen to take advantage of just one HTTP method, and not even the most useful one IMHO (that one being GET - and not the use that AndrewL suggests). But as long as it uses POST, and the binding we define permits POST semantics to be used by developers, I'm ok with it. Whether SOAP existed or not, you'd still have people misusing POST (see IPP for example). The battle to be fought isn't (any longer 8-) with the SOAP specification, but is with developers and ISVs. So far, it's clear that neither of these parties are making very good use of Web architecture, and IMHO, when that comes back to bite them, they'll at least be able to go back and use SOAP in the <ahem/> "right" way. 8-) I am happy with the resolution of issue of 133. MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Monday, 25 February 2002 05:20:19 UTC