W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > March 2005

RE: LC28: HTTP Transfer Coding and 1.0

From: Tom Jordahl <tomj@macromedia.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:54:01 -0500
Message-ID: <39A72E1EBF03EB44AACFD8036D1489F92BDDE0@p02exm01.macromedia.com>
To: "Charlton Barreto" <cbarreto@webmethods.com>, "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>
Cc: "W3C WSDL Group" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

+1 to ignored instead of must be empty.

--
Tom Jordahl
Macromedia Server Development

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Charlton Barreto
> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:51 AM
> To: Hugo Haas
> Cc: W3C WSDL Group
> Subject: Re: LC28: HTTP Transfer Coding and 1.0
> 
> 
> Hi Hugo,
> 
> The amendment works for me - I prefer the approach of ignoring the
> value, so I would change:
> 
> "Any transfer coding specified for HTTP 1.0 Binding is ignored."
> 
> to
> 
> "The value of the {http transfer coding} property is ignored when the
> value of the {http version} property is "1.0".
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -C.
> 
> On 31/03/2005, at 03:21, Hugo Haas wrote:
> 
> > Hi Charlton.
> >
> > * Charlton Barreto <cbarreto@webmethods.com> [2005-03-30 15:17-0800]
> >> In issue LC28 [1], it was raised that as the transfer coding
feature
> >> does not apply to HTTP 1.0, it is unclear how a processor would
handle
> >
> >> a  {http version}="1.0" and {http transfer coding} claim. In
general
> >> such a claim should be safely ignored by the processor.
> >>
> >> To resolve this issue I propose we update section 3.10.1 to have
the
> >> following language:
> >>
> >> "Every Binding Message Reference component MAY indicate which
transfer
> >
> >> codings, as defined in section 3.6 of [IETF RFC 2616], are
available
> >> for this particular message.
> >>
> >> The HTTP binding provides a mechanism for indicating a default
value
> > at
> >> the Binding component and Binding Operation levels.
> >>
> >> If no value is specified, no claim is being made.
> >>
> >> Any transfer coding specified for HTTP 1.0 Binding is ignored."
> >>
> >> where the change is in the addition of the last sentence.
> >>
> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC28
> >
> > We have two ways to go about this: either ignore the value or force
it
> > to be empty. I have a slight preference for the latter, but can live
> > with the former.
> >
> > However, in any case, we don't define the concept of HTTP 1.0
Binding.
> > I would therefore like to propose a friendly amendment, using
property
> > values:
> >
> >   The value of the {http transfer coding} property is ignored when
the
> >   value of the {http version} property is "1.0".
> >
> > The solution with forcing it to be empty would look like:
> >
> >   When the value of the {http version} property is "1.0", the {http
> >   transfer coding} property MUST be empty.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Hugo
> >
> > --
> > Hugo Haas - W3C
> > mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
> 
Received on Thursday, 31 March 2005 15:54:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:35 GMT