W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > March 2006

Re: Belated comments on SPARQL Protocol for RDF 25 January 2006 LC WD

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 13:07:51 -0500
Message-Id: <CC4BA85F-A379-43A0-B4EE-9C1DD372E9D5@monkeyfist.com>
Cc: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>, Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org, www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>

On Mar 22, 2006, at 11:34 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:

> I assumed we were using that. Kendall, are we not?
> Hmm.

I think we were, but it got dropped at some point. I was confused for  
a while about whether it was the default for a GET binding, and then  
we added POST, so I wasn't sure what to do. I'm still not especially  
sure. :>

The operation is safe when bound to GET, obviously, and it's actually  
also safe when bound to POST, but I don't know if you can say *that*  
in WSDL.

Advice from the WSDL folks would be really helpful on this point. :>

Received on Wednesday, 22 March 2006 18:08:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:23 UTC