W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > November 2005

RE: POST & application/x-www-form-urlencoded serializatin

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 14:37:39 -0800
Message-ID: <37D0366A39A9044286B2783EB4C3C4E8BB0AA8@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>

Thanks for your comment.  The WS Description Working Group tracked this
as a Last Call comment LC345 [1].  This opened up discussion on a number
of improvements and clarifications to this capability.  The Working
Group agreed to implement proposals at
tion and
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Nov/0020.html, plus
change the "/" syntax to an attribute.  Rather than peruse those
proposals, you might instead see the fixes incorporated into our latest
editor's draft [2].

As we plan to go to CR shortly, if we don't hear from you within 10
days, we will assume this satisfies your concern.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/issues.html#LC345

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Kendall
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 6:18 AM
To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
Subject: POST & application/x-www-form-urlencoded serializatin


I'm writing on behalf of DAWG, which is using WSDL 2.0 to specify the
Protocol for RDF [1]. We have a couple of LC comments about WSDL 2.0,
I'll be sending each one in a separate message. This message contains
last LC comment we intend to raise at this time.

We have added a POST binding for our sole operation, query, because we
anticipate there being SPARQL queries, perhaps autogenerated ones, that
too long to transmit reliably over GET, serialized into a URI.
Therefore, we
added a POST binding, and we'd like the serialization of the input
for that POST operation to be application/x-www-form-urlencoded. We do
have an XML serialization of SPARQL's surface syntax, so that we cannot

As with our other two comments, we raise this because we'd like to use
2.0 to describe our service *accurately* and completely.

Kendall Clark

[1] http://www.w3.org/sw/2001/DataAccess/proto-wd/
Received on Monday, 14 November 2005 22:55:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:05:57 UTC