W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > July 2004

RE: Issue 189 proposals:

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 09:15:04 -0700
Message-ID: <32D5845A745BFB429CBDBADA57CD41AF09332E0E@ussjex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Asir Vedamuthu" <asirv@webmethods.com>, "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

I don't believe that uri-serialization is limited to PUT and DELETE.  I
showed examples of GET and POST.

POST allows a client to "suggest" a URI for the server, hence why the 
uri serialization is useful for post as well. 

Cheers,
Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Asir Vedamuthu
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 6:11 AM
To: 'Sanjiva Weerawarana'; www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: RE: Issue 189 proposals:


Sanjiva,

I like the feature. But, I do not like the syntax. I do not have a
counter
proposal.

> That's not what I read .. the rest of it goes in the 
> payload of the POST. Is that not correct?

I heard on the call that this feature applies only to two HTTP verbs:
PUT
and DELETE.

Plus, URI style has several schema restrictions. Given these
restrictions,
it is only possible to construct simple XML documents.

Regards,
Asir S Vedamuthu
asirv at webmethods dot com
http://www.webmethods.com/ 

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 4:45 AM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: Re: Issue 189 proposals:



"David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com> writes:
> 
> I'm not sure what the point of your email is Sanjiva... 

The point of the email was to lament that this looks awfully
un-user friendly to me. I know its an accepted position and
I'm not making a counter proposal.

> Hugo has already found his answer, which hopefully is that the rest of
> the xml is not serialized at all.

That's not what I read .. the rest of it goes in the payload of the
POST. Is that not correct?

> Do you have a counter-proposal for terminating the "case element not
> cited" part of the algorithm?

Sanjiva.
Received on Tuesday, 27 July 2004 12:20:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:32 GMT