- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 21:32:09 -0500
- To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 02:48:58PM -0800, David Orchard wrote: > While I can't see > where REST speaks about binding to protocols being in the definition of > representations, it also doesn't appear to preclude this. REST talks about > representations being the transfer of application state. Right, representations are serializations of application state. But everything is not a representation. For example, any SOAP envelope with a method in it is not a representation. For at least one use of SOAP - the so-called "chameleon" use - it appears that what you call a "SOAP representation" is indeed a representation. But in the tunnel use of SOAP, or when SOAP is bound to a *transport* protocol, a "SOAP representation" is not a representation. Just my 2c. MB -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2003 21:30:10 UTC