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

Re: HTTP binding options

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:59:51 -0500
To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-ID: <20031112205951.T2875@www.markbaker.ca>

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 04:40:02PM -0800, David Orchard wrote:
> After some discussion, I think that what I've been hearing is a bit more of
> a refinement.  I think I could live with an entire GED always being
> serialized, and also have some bindings serialize a part of the GED into an
> alternate encoding, such as a URI.  In the case of something like a
> brokerage transaction, the transaction # could go into the URI but would
> need to go into the envelope.

Why would it need to go in the URI?  You seem to be describing a POST
(in the case of HTTP) example, where IMO, the URI should identify the
message destination, not be dependent upon what's being communicated.

Mark.
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2003 20:58:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:27 GMT