RE: T is for Transfer

> This would seem to severely constrain the degree to which 
> information from the HTTP protocol layer is useful.  
> Presumably if there is a fault, it needs to be communicated 
> back to X identically whether it occurs before or after the 
> non-HTTP link (the ==>).

I understand the requirements that come into play for multi-protocol,
multi-hop messages to work. I also am a lot more interested in the web
and only the web, because that's pretty much where I am as a developer.

I'm a lot more interested in SOAP if it plays nice and works alongside
(and not invisibly to) everything else on the web. If it takes a
separate binding that isn't constrained by non-web concerns, I don't
have a problem with that. Absent such a binding, the utility of XML,
schema, RDF, etc. with HTTP is a lot higher than the utility of SOAP,
IMHO. And purely from a truth in advertising standpoint, the rubric "web
services" ought to go.

-- Scott

Received on Friday, 29 March 2002 17:30:52 UTC