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

Re: Starting on the HTTP binding edits

From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 15:01:44 -0400
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>
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Message-Id: <8C5968B0-E070-11D6-8602-0003937568DC@sun.com>

On Tuesday, Oct 15, 2002, at 14:45 US/Eastern, 
noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:

> 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:
> <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.
> </deleted>

> 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):
Nohing to do with me guv'nor. I think that para was deleted and 
replaced with the one directly following it as part of a prior change.

> * This section is significant in discussing the concept of "safe
> retrievals";  I don't think we should lose it.
The following (new) paragraph talks about this too so I'm not sure we 
lost anything.

> *  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.
I expect the change was part of another issue resolution so I don;t 
think we should just put it back without check why it was changed in 
the first place - anyone want to 'fess up ?


Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
XML Technology Center, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2002 15:01:39 UTC

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