W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2006

Re: Optional SOAP response; the transfer binding view

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 00:49:30 -0500
Message-ID: <c70bc85d0601132149u230adbedm32328dcf6d3319f7@mail.gmail.com>
To: "noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org

On 1/13/06, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> If the purpose is to accept the entity, then that comes pretty close to
> implying that the POST has no work to do if there is no entity.  So, I'm
> saying that it could have made sense, but the spec appears to rule it out.

Understood.  I'm confident the spec wouldn't rule it out, but I agree
that the language is ambiguous enough to warrant running it by the old
HTTP WG (ietf-http-wg@w3.org)

> > > Someone who knows more of the details will have to remind me how this
> > > squares with application/x-www-form-urlencoded.
> >
> > Not quite sure what you mean by that.
>
> As I understand it, application/x-www-form-urlencoded is usually done with
> a POST with no entity.

As Jan mentioned, the encoded data goes in the POST body for HTML POST
forms.  You might be referring to the GET form case when that same
format is used to serialize the form parameters into the query
component of the URI;

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/interact/forms.html#h-17.13

Mark.
--
Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.       http://www.markbaker.ca
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies  http://www.coactus.com
Received on Saturday, 14 January 2006 05:49:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:21 GMT