- From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 20:48:02 -0700
- To: "'Tim Bray'" <tbray@textuality.com>, "'David Orchard'" <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
> I propose that for those proportion of SOAP requests that consist of a
> service name plus a sequence of name-value-pair arguments, we devise a
> simple url encoding. Wouldn't be hard.
Please make sure that the issues are addressed:
- length limits on URLs
Can the length be limited a priori? Or should the server
be required to support both GET and POST, and the client
allowed to send both?
- no standard encoding for non-ASCII
Unless the names and values in the name-value-pair arguments are
limited to ASCII only values, the simple URL encoding should specify
how encoding is handled.
I guess the stock quote example is ASCII only. Otherwise
you use UTF-8 & hex encoding?
Certainly the Google service isn't ASCII-only.
If you allow two encodings (one using GET when it works
and one using POST when GET doesn't work for one reason
or another), don't you add to the complexity of the
implementations? The 'S' in SOAP stood for 'Simple'.
Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Sunday, 21 April 2002 23:48:57 UTC