W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlp-comments@w3.org > February 2002

RE: Issue 133: SOAP and Web Architecture Resolution

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:31:41 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F192983@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Yves Lafon'" <ylafon@w3.org>
Cc: xmlp-comments@w3.org
Yves,

I was quoting as directly as I could from Mark Baker's message [1] which
speaks about the preservation of POST semantics... which is what the WG
agreed to on the call (I thought). We referenced Mark's message on the call
and Mark himself cited [1] in his regrets to the telcon. 

I'm not sure how we could speak about preservation of GET semantics in an
HTTP binding that does not use GET.

I think if you want this changed you will probably need to bring it back to
the WG.

Regards

Stuart


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Jan/0450.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yves Lafon [mailto:ylafon@w3.org]
> Sent: 18 February 2002 12:16
> To: Williams, Stuart
> Cc: xmlp-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Issue 133: SOAP and Web Architecture Resolution
> 
> 
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, Williams, Stuart wrote:
> 
> > 2) that the HTTP binding that we define on Part 2 Adjuncts 
> *can* be used in
> > a manner
> >    that preserves POST semantics, but that it's up to the 
> developer to use
> > it that
> >    way.
> 
> Shouldn't we read "that preserves GET semantics" here?
> Thanks,
> 
> -- 
> Yves Lafon - W3C
> "Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."
> 
Received on Monday, 18 February 2002 07:32:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:42:27 GMT