W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > October 2002

Re: Starting on the HTTP binding edits

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 14:45:26 -0400
To: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Cc: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, W3C Public Archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFA7F2345A.B349DEC8-ON85256C53.00579397@lotus.com>

I'm trying, with mixed success, to skim this while also following the 
discussion here at the schema f2f.  I'm still trying to grok the overall 
flow of what's changed, but for the most part it looks good.  One thing 
did stand out as a significant concern.  I note that the following text 
has been deleted:

Applications SHOULD use "GET" as the value of webmeth:Method in 
conjunction with the 6.3 SOAP Response Message Exchange Pattern to support 
information retrievals which are safe, and for which no parameters other 
than a URI are required; i.e. when performing retrievals which are 
idempotent, known to be free of side effects, for which no SOAP request 
headers are required, and for which security considerations do not 
conflict with the possibility that cached results would be used. Except in 
unusual circumstances, other operations SHOULD be performed using "POST" 
in conjunction with the 6.2 SOAP Request-Response Message Exchange 
Pattern. Other methods SHOULD not in general be used. For example, use of 
"PUT" would suggest storing the SOAP envelope Infoset as the created 
resource, as opposed to processing in the manner required by the SOAP 
processing model (see [SOAP Part 1], section SOAP Processing Model.

Was this change made as part of these edits.  If so, I have a concern for 
several reasons (and if not I apologize for raising this in this thread):

* This section is significant in discussing the concept of "safe 
retrievals";  I don't think we should lose it.
*  This was an important part of our negotiated agreement with the TAG. If 
I were them, I would be concerned to see this change without warning.
* I think it is way beyond editorial, and well beyond our remit to 
restructure the bindings.

So,  reasonably strong plea to put this back the way it was. 

(Note: since this is substantive discussion, I've cc:'d the archive.)

Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2002 14:48:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:31:54 UTC