W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > June 2002

RE: Draft agenda: 24 June TAG teleconference (Arch document, WSA update)

From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:46:17 -0700
Message-ID: <2E33960095B58E40A4D3345AB9F65EC107D665FD@win-msg-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
To: "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

"David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com> wrote:
> I, and I think the TAG, agree with having a WSDL definition for a HTTP
> GET-in/SOAP out binding that is orthogonal to the SOAP POST binding.
> Could this be added to the WSDL issues list, as it sounds like you are
> in agreement as well.

Is there a proposal on the table for the WG to provide a second,
normative binding for HTTP/1.1 GET, separate from a binding for HTTP/1.1
POST?

Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] wrote:
>FYI: A requirement for us to support the new SOAP MEP (the HTTP-GET-in
/
>HTTP-SOAP-out case). 

I think Issue 26 [1] covers this.

>Also, Paul Prescod would like it to be possible
>to bind different HTTP operations on a per operation basis rather than
>just on a per-portType basis. I think both these requirements make
>sense.

Issues 53 [2] and 54 [3] already cover this. In [4], I proposed that we
do not make these changes in the HTTP GET / POST binding that the WG
produces due to lack of interest within the WG. There was no pushback on
this during the last teleconference, but I see that we have another
opportunity to discuss it at the teleconference tomorrow.

--Jeff

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x26 
[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x53 
[3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x54 
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jun/0102.html 
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2002 18:46:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:20 GMT