- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 21:07:23 -0500
- To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 10:11:18AM -0800, David Orchard wrote: > I believe that your counter example is still a representation. It's simply > a representation of a request. Sort of, but not really. 8-) It's true that if you assigned URIs to messages, and then invoked GET on one, that you may see something bit-wise identical to a real message. But it would be a representation, not a message, because it's returned over GET, and GET returns representations; there's no room to process it like a message. What I mean by that last part is that if I received the following representation; PUT http://www.whitehouse.gov HTTP/1.0 Content-Type: text/plain [blank line] The President is a weenie Then I wouldn't be obligated to process it as an HTTP PUT request, nor would the agent that sent it expect that I would. That's the differene between a message and a representation. Hopefully you can see the security implications of treating representations as messages. 8-) > The point being, the SOAP architecture fits very well into the web > architecture, once one clearly defines the relationship between these terms. I think SOAP can fit very well into Web architecture, but only by encapsulating representations within the envelope rather than messages. MB -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
Received on Monday, 10 February 2003 21:05:00 UTC