W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > February 2002

Re: Issue 133: SOAP and Web Architecture: Draft sentences for HTT P bi nding preamble.

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 14:43:30 -0800
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>, xml-dist-app@w3.org, Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
Message-ID: <20020220144329.D2544@mnot.net>

I'm inclined to call GET a binding feature of a HTTP binding, rather
than a separate binding, because it both places constraints on the
way you use SOAP and provides certain functionality, rather than
providing a mechanism to move *any* SOAP message around.

There would need to be an established convention to get from a
(constrained, as per the rules of the GET feature) SOAP envelope to a
URI and back. There may be one for arbitrary XML, but I view that as
a degenerate case.


On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 09:28:23PM -0000, Williams, Stuart wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 10:16:59AM -0800, Paul Prescod wrote:
> > > If you (and they) would separate out your data model from your
> > > syntax then this would be even easier. XML is *just a data format*.
> > > If it gets in the way, get rid of it!
> > 
> > Exactly! If the WG defines a mechanism whereby different data models
> > from the envelope can be serialised into the URI, GET becomes easy,
> > as long as the other limitations of GET are acknowledged. The obvious
> > serialisation to start with is of section 5 encoding.
> And for an arbitrary SOAP message?

Mark Nottingham
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2002 17:43:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:18 UTC