- 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>
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. Cheers, 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 http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2002 17:43:33 UTC