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

RE: Action item: HTTP binding for accepts header and output Serialization.

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:47:49 -0700
Message-ID: <DF1BAFBC28DF694A823C9A8400E71EA204197DE5@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>, "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: "Web Services Description" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

I'm not sure where this is going.  Sounds like there are more issues
that we need to discuss prior to resolving this editorial AI?  Or is
this a proposal for additional functionality?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
> Behalf Of Hugo Haas
> Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 8:40 AM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: Web Services Description
> Subject: Re: Action item: HTTP binding for accepts header and output
> Serialization.
> * Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org> [2004-06-24 12:39+0200]
> > However, I am not sure how this feature would work with the input
> > using GET and foo:myDataType in your example, though I have to admit
> > don't get what the current one does in this case either.
> I've just read the new version of the Application Data feature and
> realized that it's what you meant when you said Abstract Data feature
> which is the new name for ADD, which threw me off.
> Looking at the action item from [1], I think that there are two things
> to address:
> - how expectedMediaType impacts (input|output|fault)Serialization.
> - how expectedMediaType impacts the Accept header.
> For the former, as I said in my previous email, I think that we can
> have a feature which says that the value of
> (input|output|fault)Serialization in inherited from the
> expectedMediaType information on the message reference. Note that it
> would mean that the serialization values could be a list of media
> types, which I guess is OK in this particular case.
> Regarding the latter, let me first see if I understand your example
> correctly: your document says that the input message may contain an
> Accept header, without specifying the value. I don't think that we
> even need to say that. I think that this is always the case that an
> HTTP message may contain an Accept header, and that the application
> should deal with this accordingly. What we can say, which would I
> think discharge the WG of the action item, would be to say that:
> - expectedMediaType placed on an input message is equivalent to an
>   Accept header from the POV of the service.
> - an HTTP request from a requester agent may always contain an Accept
>   header; the value of the header should take into account the
>   expectedMediaType information for subsequent output messages from
>   the provider agent to make sense.
> Does that make sense?
> Regards,
> Hugo
>   1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0074.html
> --
> Hugo Haas - W3C
> mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Wednesday, 30 June 2004 14:56:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:49 UTC