Re: Another try at HTTP binding

This has not prevented us, in the past, to publish Part 3, even 
if there were no SOAP Binding changes.

JJ.

Roberto Chinnici wrote:

> 
> I'm just thinking aloud here, but wouldn't it be better to keep the
> two bindings in two separate documents? I'm not convinced that there's
> going to be that much overlap in readership, plus that approach
> would allow us to publish them indipendently, thus avoiding delaying
> one binding because of issues with the other.
> 
> Thanks,
> Roberto
> 
> 
> Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 11:38, Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:
>>
>>> Philippe, is there any chance you could provide a diff over the 
>>> existing spec text (or any other mechanism that you might deem 
>>> appropriate), to make it easier to evaluate your proposed changes?
>>
>>
>>
>> Jean-Jacques, here is the document:
>> http://www.w3.org/2004/01/21-httpbinding.html
>>
>> Note: to avoid messing up the Part 3, I'm working on a standalone
>> version of HTTP binding document. The intent is to fold it into our
>> current documents after appropriate reviews and changes.
>>
>> I rewrote the proposal to make it closer to the approach taken by XForms
>> 1.0. As Mark noted, XForms 1.0 does not allow you to put data into the
>> path of the URI. I left it in the document however, marked with an issue
>> on it (as discussed during last week teleconference).
>>
>> Changes from earlier proposals:
>> - HTTP POST does no longer let you put data into the URI.
>> - List of simple types are no longer as pairs of name/value, but instead
>> using a single pair (that simplify the definition of the URI style).
>> - New attribute to select the character separator in URIs.
>> - New mechanism to select the serialization format (and the HTTP method
>> at the same time).
>> - Introduced the URI and Multipart operation styles.
>>
>> I still didn't manage to come up with a proposal for HTTP headers,
>> especially since we don't @headers attribute anymore.
>>
>> Issues are inline in the document.
>>
>> Philippe
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 22 January 2004 12:12:54 UTC