W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > February 2003

RE: HTTP Binding Issues

From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 18:26:11 -0800
Message-ID: <2E33960095B58E40A4D3345AB9F65EC10A007313@win-msg-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Dave, glad to hear you're interested in helping.

I didn't quite understand your question, so I'll answer a related one.
At the teleconference earlier this week, the WG decided _not_ to change
the HTTP binding in WSDL 1.2 to allow encoding complex types or
attributes in a request URL (Issues 6a, 41); HTTP request URLs will
remain segmented, flat, and (somewhat) human readable.

We also decided to use language compatible with the upcoming IRI
recommendation for non-ASCII characters in a request URI (Issues 6b,
6d).

Furthermore, IBM\Arthur and W3C\Philipe volunteered to write up
proposals for URL replacement and for allowing binding to various HTTP
methods.

We postponed discussion of other HTTP-related binding issues because we
ran out of time.

--Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of David Orchard
> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 12:19 PM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE: HTTP Binding Issues
> 
> Are the "leave-as-is" dispositions mean leave the WSDL 1.1 work in
1.2, or
> does it mean leave WSDL 1.2 as-is, that is without the 1.1 work?
> 
> I must admit, I'm rather surprised at the sudden motivation to do a
> scenario driven approach.  I'd be glad to help out on any scenarios in
> this area.
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> > Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 4:10 PM
> > To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > Subject: HTTP Binding Issues
> >
> >
> >
> > I took an ACTION to restart discussion on the HTTP binding
> > issues.  Most
> > of the issues are about increasing the functionality available in
the
> > HTTP binding.  Jeffrey did a great job of summarizing the issues and
> > proposing dispositions [1] based on the principle of not
> > increasing the
> > functionality in the HTTP binding.  His rationale is an
> > obvious lack of
> > interest in this functionality by the WG.
> >
> > I propose we first address this larger question of what scenarios we
> > envision the HTTP binding being used in, and how expressive
> > the binding
> > need to be in order to satisfy the needs of those scenarios.
> > Should we
> > increase the expressive power of the HTTP binding?
> >
> > I will set aside time at this week's telcon to address this
question.
> > After we've reached some consensus on that question, the individual
> > issues Jeffrey categorizes and proposes resolutions to [1] should
> > proceed more quickly.
> >
> > [1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jun/0102.html
> >
> >
> >
Received on Friday, 14 February 2003 21:26:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:22 GMT