Re: no-transform & Warning

Mark Nottingham wrote:

> I was talking about placing a requirement on the OPES server 
> implmentation, not the callout protocol itself. I.e., the protocol can 
> be agnostic, but the thing that stuffs HTTP messages into it had better 
> understand the semantics of HTTP.
Yup, this I agree with, building the application semantic around a 
generic protocol, rather than building it into the protocol itself. It 
was not clear to me whether people thought of making the callout 
protocol itself aware of the encapsulated application protocol.
-Markus