- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 13:51:39 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Cc: xmlp-comments@w3.org
I'd be more comfortable if there were some non-normative text that notes that no-transform might be a good idea in some situations; they're becoming more prevalent, and awareness of them is low, which can lead to debugging problems. While Cache-Control isn't special, there are some aspects (especially no-transorm and the corresponding Warning) that IMHO would be very usefully exposed as binding features. However, based on discussion that's happened recently in the TAG, I imagine that this issue may be subsumed by Last Call issue(s) regarding SOAP and Cache-Control in general, so I'm happy to let it go here. Regards, Quoting Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>: > > Updated subject > > Henrik Frystyk Nielsen > mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen > >Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 12:06 > >To: 'Mark Nottingham' > >Cc: 'xmlp-comments@w3.org' > >Subject: Closing issue 204: SOAPAction header and "action" > >parameter on media type > > > > > > > >Mark, > > > >The XML Protocol WG [2] has decided to close issue 204 [0], > >which you raised against the SOAP 1.2 specification. If the > >resolution outlined below is not acceptable to you then please > >respond to this mail with a detailed description of your > >concerns and preferably what you see not being addressed as > >part of the resolution. > > > >RESOLUTION > >---------- > > > >In [1] you ask whether the WG has considered the various > >cache-control directives and in particular "no-transform" and > >how that applies to SOAP. The WG discussed the issue and came > >to the following conclusion: Any HTTP implementation should > >certainly take advantage of the features provided by HTTP [3]. > >However, there is nothing particularly special about how the > >various cache-control directives apply to SOAP - they are > >defined in an entirely orthogonal manner and so the WG didn't > >see a reason for why the binding should say. > > > >Thank you, > > > >Henrik Frystyk Nielsen > >mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com > > > >[0] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues#x204 > >[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Apr/0173.html > >[2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/ > >[3] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt > > >
Received on Wednesday, 1 May 2002 16:51:47 UTC