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

RE: No consensus on draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7)

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 20:48:02 -0700
To: "'Tim Bray'" <tbray@textuality.com>, "'David Orchard'" <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001c1e9b0$887046e0$6ace8642@larrypad>
> I propose that for those proportion of SOAP requests that consist of a

> service name plus a sequence of name-value-pair arguments, we devise a

> simple url encoding.  Wouldn't be hard.

Please make sure that the issues are addressed:

- length limits on URLs
   Can the length be limited a priori? Or should the server
   be required to support both GET and POST, and the client
   allowed to send both?

- no standard encoding for non-ASCII
   Unless the names and values in the name-value-pair arguments are
   limited to ASCII only values, the simple URL encoding should specify
   how encoding is handled.

   I guess the stock quote example is ASCII only. Otherwise
    you use UTF-8 & hex encoding?
   Certainly the Google service isn't ASCII-only.

If you allow two encodings (one using GET when it works
and one using POST when GET doesn't work for one reason
or another), don't you add to the complexity of the
implementations? The 'S' in SOAP stood for 'Simple'.

Larry
-- 
http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Sunday, 21 April 2002 23:48:57 GMT

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