W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > January 2007

RE: CR117 summary

From: Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:12:31 -0800
To: "'Youenn Fablet'" <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>, "'www-ws-desc'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01d101c74574$25cd6890$3501a8c0@DELLICIOUS>

I've annotated Youenn's analysis with the option numbers from last week's
poll (which I'll carry forward this week).

Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Youenn Fablet
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 5:51 AM
> To: www-ws-desc
> Subject: CR117 summary
> 
> 
>  From last week telcon, different options were proposed to solve
> (partially) CR117.
> Here is a summary:

Option 1: Jonathan's 1st - new syntax for controlling whether or not to
encode

> 1) Enable two serialization modes (encoded and raw)
> Pros: the most powerful option, simple to explain and understand
> Cons: new feature, may require a new Last Call


Option 0: status quo - nothing encoded

> 2) Status quo
> Pros: enable dynamic URI constructions
> Cons: greatly limit the usability of GET and POST/x-www-form-urlencoded
> for web services
> Notes:
>     1) IIRC, the SPARQL description (the only real example of the HTTP
> binding, AFAIKT) may lead to ambiguous requests, since strings and uris
> values are serialized as query string parameters
>     2) IIRC, form web clients generally URL-encode parameter values
> before inserting them in the query string. WSDL would not be able to
> describe the servers processing these requests.


Option 5: everything encoded 

> 3) Select Encoded mode
> Pros: simple to explain, ambiguity is then easy to check.
> Cons: Disable the ability to describe some REST-style services
> Note: Raw mode use cases may be partially enabled with the encoded mode
> by splitting a single parameter value into several parameter values.
>     <element name="date"/> would be changed as <element
> name="year"/><element name="month"/><element name="day"/>
> The one case that cannot be addressed with the encoded mode is when a
> parameter value contains a variable number of path steps, which may not
> be that widespread.


Option 2: Youenn - cited parameters raw, uncited encoded

> 4) Raw mode for path parameter values/Encoded mode for query parameter
> values
> Pros: No LC needed. Enable dynamic path construction. Also enable
> SPARQL, web forms scenarios and all simple use of HTTP GET. Ambiguity is
> easy to check for simple location templates.
> Cons: Less understandable (?) than the other options.
> URL-Encoding query parameter values is quite widespread and, IMHO, we
> should not go against that.
> The current status quo is also vague about whether URL-encoding is used
> or not for query parameter values.
> I also did not heard anybody arguing for the support of dynamic query
> string parameters...
> 
> Hope this helps going forward with this issue,
>     Youenn
Received on Wednesday, 31 January 2007 20:12:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:45 GMT