- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 11:15:11 -0400
- To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, www-tag@w3.org
Hi Tim, On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 07:44:42AM -0700, Tim Bray wrote: > Mark Baker wrote: > > > > > I have a better proposal for you. We have already addressed this issue > > in the XMLP WG; > > > > http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues#x133 > > > > The resolution to that should suffice for the TAG, IMO. > > Huh? As I read it, the conclusion of the XMLP WG was "Get lost. We're > only going to define a POST binding." Not at all, I held up the resolution of 133 until my concerns were addressed. The relevant part of the resolution that made me happy was; "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." In other words, like I just explained to Dave, nothing's stopping a developer from *also* using GET, PUT, and DELETE on the same URI that you're POSTing a SOAP envelope to, and from populating the SOAP body with a resource representation rather than a method name. It's important that we separate, at least for this purpose, the SOAP specification itself from its common use. As you know, I'm often the first person to jump on anybody who uses SOAP in a non Web architecture friendly manner, but that doesn't mean the SOAP spec itself is flawed. MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2002 11:40:54 UTC