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

Re: Issue 133: SOAP and The Web Architecture

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:24:33 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200201312124.QAA22631@markbaker.ca>
To: skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Williams, Stuart)
Cc: hugo@w3.org ("Hugo Haas (E-mail)"), xml-dist-app@w3.org ('xml-dist-app@w3.org')
Stuart, TBTF,

> So, at this time the proposal from the TBTF to close Issue 133 is that the
> binding we offer in SOAP 1.2 continue to use the HTTP POST method in the
> manner established in SOAP 1.1 and to note that our binding framework makes
> it is possible to define additional HTTP bindings.

I don't believe that addresses the issue.

IMO, a simple way to address this issue would be to say that the HTTP
binding that we have defined can be used in a manner that preserves POST
semantics, but that it's up to the developer to use it that way - the
same way it's up to them to use it without SOAP in the picture.  The
inclusion of RPC in the spec is, by definition, misusing POST semantics,
but we were chartered to provide such a solution, so we should just be
able to say that we were "following orders".

A more thorough way to address the issue would be to describe how
another HTTP binding could be defined on the other HTTP methods.  My
suggestion for using a GET body (sorry, Mark 8-) was just such an
attempt.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2002 16:35:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:06 GMT