W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2002

Re: FW: draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7)

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 01:10:21 -0700
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
To: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
Message-Id: <6581798F-5111-11D6-8080-000A27836A68@mnot.net>
Do most Web developers know the background behind safe/unsafe methods, 
idempotence, and understand the depths of REST, or do they just use POST 
when they want to hide the query arguments?

Does that make REST any less valid?

Of course there will be people who misunderstand SOAP, or limit their 
understanding to a subset of its capability. Why is that "fishy?"


On Monday, April 15, 2002, at 11:17  PM, Paul Prescod wrote:

> David Orchard wrote:
>>
>> I disagree that SOAP using HTTP POST is necessarily an RPC mechanism.  
>> Many
>> folks are providing arbitrary document oriented messages using 
>> SOAP/HTTP.
>> In fact, there seems to be an emerging point of view that 
>> document/literal
>> is preferred over rpc.  So please, let's not say soap=rpc.
>
> It worries me that we're almost done standardizing this thing and still
> debating the right way to use it. You could argue that the same was true
> for XML but the issue is much deeper with SOAP. XML had an interoperable
> core that everyone could agree upon. That is not true of SOAP. For most
> developers "SOAP RPC over HTTP w/section 5 encoding" *is* the
> interoperable core and yet for others (let's call them the SOAP
> intelligencia), it is just a historical artifact. That suggests to me
> that there is something fishy going on.
>
>  Paul Prescod
>
>
--
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2002 04:10:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:06 GMT