W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > September 2006

Re: Minutes, 14 Sep 2006 WS Description WG telcon

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 10:43:10 +0200
To: Charlton Barreto <barreto@adobe.com>
Cc: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>, Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, paul.downey@bt.com, sanjiva@wso2.com, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-id: <450FAD9E.10901@crf.canon.fr>

Do we have enough implementations though to satisfy the CR exit criteria 
(soon)?

JJ.

Charlton Barreto wrote:
>
> Agreed. I support leaving in the parts serialization of instance data 
> in the HTTP request IRI.
>
> -Charlton.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] 
> *On Behalf Of *Arthur Ryman
> *Sent:* Monday, September 18, 2006 1:42 PM
> *To:* Jonathan Marsh
> *Cc:* paul.downey@bt.com; sanjiva@wso2.com; www-ws-desc@w3.org; 
> www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> *Subject:* RE: Minutes, 14 Sep 2006 WS Description WG telcon
>
>
> Jonathan,
>
> It is very common for data to appear in the IRI, e.g. id numbers. as 
> in http://example.org/part/1234
>
> I think this should be left in.
>
> Arthur Ryman,
> IBM Software Group, Rational Division
>
> blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
> phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
> assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
> fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
> mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca
>
> *Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>*
> Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
>
> 09/18/2006 12:18 PM
>
> 	
>
> To
>
> 	
>
> Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, "paul.downey@bt.com" <paul.downey@bt.com>
>
> cc
>
> 	
>
> "sanjiva@wso2.com" <sanjiva@wso2.com>, "www-ws-desc@w3.org" 
> <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, "www-ws-desc-request@w3.org" 
> <www-ws-desc-request@w3.org>
>
> Subject
>
> 	
>
> RE: Minutes, 14 Sep 2006 WS Description WG telcon
>
> 	
>
>
>
>
> My impression is that at this point the only part of the HTTP binding 
> thatís at risk of being removed are the parts called out in the draft, 
> namely the serialization of instance data in parts of the HTTP request 
> IRI Ė the use of curly braces with the IRI style.
>
> I havenít heard anyone who plans to implement the HTTP binding saying 
> they wonít also implement this part. Is there any evidence to suggest 
> this part (6.7.1) should be cut? Is it just too early to tell?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> *From:* Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com] *
> Sent:* Monday, September 18, 2006 6:51 AM*
> To:* paul.downey@bt.com*
> Cc:* Jonathan Marsh; sanjiva@wso2.com; www-ws-desc@w3.org; 
> www-ws-desc-request@w3.org*
> Subject:* RE: Minutes, 14 Sep 2006 WS Description WG telcon
>
>
> Paul/Sanjiva,
>
> I think there is a lot of value in the HTTP binding because it closes 
> the gap between what WSDL 1.1 could describe and what developers are 
> actually using for things like AJAX. I'm sure this won't satisfy REST 
> purists, but even the ability to use GET instead of POST is a welcome 
> improvement.
>
> Arthur Ryman,
> IBM Software Group, Rational Division
>
> blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
> phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
> assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
> fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
> mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca
>
> *<paul.downey@bt.com>*
> Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
>
> 09/18/2006 09:11 AM
>
> 	
>
> To
>
> 	
>
> <sanjiva@wso2.com>, <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
>
> cc
>
> 	
>
> <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
>
> Subject
>
> 	
>
> RE: Minutes, 14 Sep 2006 WS Description WG telcon
>
>
> 	
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Sanjiva
>
> >> <pauld> sees more benefit in resource centric approaches such as WADL
> >> for REST; WSDL 2.0 could be useful for people interested in POX
>
> > WADL can waddle along and defined whatever they want. That doesn't 
> mean we
> > need to pull this out. If users don't want both let market forces decide
> > the "winner".
>
> +1 FWIW, I was trying to emphasise the difference between WSDL HTTP
> which is great for describing messaging systems, but shouldn't get
> mired by being sold as some kind of REST description language.
>
> > WSDL's HTTP binding is not about REST! Its about describing how to
> > exchange WSDL messages over raw HTTP without SOAP.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Paul
>
Received on Tuesday, 19 September 2006 08:44:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:41 GMT