Lists Home |
Date Index |
> SOAP itself uses the model I am talking about. You have an XML envelope,
> with XML headers, and XML body entries that contain XML data. This envelope,
> headers, and body is all part of a protocol.
SOAP does not use that model. You can use it this way, and indeed it
could be argued that the entire web services movement is using this
model, but SOAP can also be used in a way where the intent of the
message is left to the intent of the application protocol that carries
it. I pushed hard on the XML Protocol WG to ensure that this was
the case (as it was for SOAP 1.1, but not 1.0 or 0.9).
> Is this mixing "protocol" and
> If not, then where do you draw the line and say "if you put a tag
> here, you are mixing protocol and data".
You draw the line where you require agreement on "intent" that is not
an intent defined by the application protocol.
You can buy CDs with an HTML form using HTTP POST without the word
"purchase" or "buy" needing to be part of the message. In other
words, POST suffices as an intent for that operation. Why do you
think that is?
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. email@example.com