- From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 17:05:52 -0800
- To: "Roberto Chinnici" <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>, "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Roberto, I don't quite understand your suggestion below. Can you elaborate? --Jeff > From: Roberto Chinnici > > Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: > > The "HTTP binding table" at the post-meeting lunch came up > > with the following possible options for the HTTP binding: > > > > option 1: > > drop HTTP binding completely > > > > option 2: > > define a POST binding only with the natural binding possible: > > input becomes POST body and output must be POST response > > > > option 3: > > define option 2 + > > define GET binding for operations with MEP=in-out and with no > > input body (i.e., GET goes to http:address URL) and the output > > must be the GET response > > I think I'd prefer doing (3) with a slight change, i.e. that we also > support the PUT/POST analog of "GET binding for operations with > MEP=in-out and with no input body". This amounts to a "POST binding for > operations with MEP=in-out and with no output body". PUT would work as > well, as long as there are no faults.
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2003 20:06:06 UTC