- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:36:29 +0600
- To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
"Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org> writes: > On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 11:55:57AM -0700, David Orchard wrote: > > One of the interesting places this might lead us, is that if we think that > > there should be typing available for the GET query string, I'm not sure that > > it's a WSD problem. Seems like mapping Schema to url-encoded nvp is more > > general than wsd. > > IMO, this is most definitely a WSDL problem. HTML forms are currently > more capable than WSDL here; they have a type system[1], and a means to > bind those types to field names. I can't get to that URL right now (network problems) but WSDL has exactly that capability: it provides a means to bind types to field names via the <message> construct. Please also see my answer to David Orchard's original note for more details. > I don't think it's appropriate to put type information in the URI > because the URI is opaque to the client. If the client is constructing > a URI, it should only be because the server told it how, with a form. > And in that case, the server already knows the types. I agree! So if someone used appropriate types in writing a WSDL then that's how the "server" told the "client" about the types . No more, no less. Sanjiva.
Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2002 00:37:32 UTC