Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion

> > But yes, my proposed solution to this issue when I raised it[1] was this;
> > 
> > "1) update the binding framework to state that each binding should
> > declare that the authoritative determinant of whether a message is a
> > fault or not should be the underlying protocol"
> > 
> I suppose that is what worries me most!  I just don't understand
> why the intent of the message lies someplace outside of the SOAP
> Envelope.

That's the definition of the chameleon view; that the meaning of the
message transfer comes from the underlying application protocol.

I do agree that this is not how the industry is using it, but it is
the only use of SOAP consistent with Web architecture.

Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.

Received on Thursday, 28 March 2002 07:43:36 UTC