W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > June 2003

Re: Proposed text for 2.2.21 (take 2)

From: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 13:29:26 -0400
Message-ID: <004e01c33cd1$e692fd10$6f01a8c0@TPX21>
To: "Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>, "Francis McCabe" <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>, "Hao He" <Hao.He@thomson.com.au>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

I think Mark's point is that when you use the HTTP GET Web Feature, you
don't *send* a message to the resource. You simply GET the representation,
which happens to be a SOAP message.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
To: "Francis McCabe" <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>; "Hao He" <Hao.He@thomson.com.au>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 12:50 PM
Subject: RE: Proposed text for 2.2.21 (take 2)

> > I would strongly suggest removing the references to using HTTP GET as a
> > way of sending messages. Mark B is right on this one. If you want to
> > use HTTP, the appropriate verb is POST.
> I don't fully understand your comment. I think Hao was referring to the
Web Method feature of SOAP 1.2. According to that feature, an HTTP GET
represents a particular binding of a SOAP Response MEP. So an HTTP GET used
in this context is a legitimate realization of the type of messages we
address in this spec.
> > I suggest further that the plain XML reference is not one that has been
> > endorsed by the group. Indeed I recall significant pushback on this
> I agree.
> Ugo
Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 13:31:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:07 UTC