- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 15:33:25 -0500 (EST)
- To: jacek@systinet.com (Jacek Kopecky)
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Mark, > I'm not sure what you mean by "web architecture", because I > thought we have yet to see that. 8-) Heh. Well, linked off our home page is this; http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Architecture which includes some discussion about why GET is so special to web architecture. > Anyway, from SOAP-centric point of view, a transport binding > specifies means of getting SOAP messages from one node to > another. > I think that your proposal (of making the Body optional) should > come from a use case independent of any particular protocol > binding, not from some unusual but possible use of GET method in > HTTP. > Do you have any use case for Body-less messages that is > independent of HTTP? Sure. How about FTP RETR, IMAP LIST, NNTP ARTICLE, or any other idempotent retrieval method from any application protocol? A SOAP binding to any of these protocols may necessitate the need to do such a thing, unless you only want to tunnel. I don't know about the practical implications of including a body with all of those protocols, but it's possible that some don't disallow bodies like HTTP. Anyhow, I brought this up because I thought it could help address issue 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 Wednesday, 30 January 2002 15:31:25 UTC