RE: Updated SOAP HTTP GET binding document

Mark,

You are indeed correct what my response is.  Please note that the section
you quote is listed in the out-of-scope section.  I disagree that mapping
all HTTP methods to SOAP methods is required to declare success.  What I
understood from finding on issue 7 was that GET - particularly
expressibility in URIs that are GET dereferencable - must be supportable.
And this proposal attempts to satisfy that finding, not a generic HTTP
Method to SOAP Method mapping.  FWIW, your mapping goal has never come up in
the TAG.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 7:59 PM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Updated SOAP HTTP GET binding document
>
>
> Cool.
>
> I assume that this was your response to my question about how which
> bindings should be used;
>
> "There are a variety of other HTTP methods and common method prefixes
> that could be mapped. For example, a setStockPrice SOAP
> Method could be
> mapped to the HTTP PUT method."
>
> Rather than "could" (which I interpret as "MAY"), I'd like to see a
> "SHOULD" in there.  Otherwise you'll have people sending getFoo()
> methods over PUT, setFoo() methods over POST, etc..
>
> I believe that saying this is *very* important; IMO, more important
> than doing a GET binding.
>
> Thanks.
>
> MB
>
> On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 07:33:50PM -0700, David Orchard wrote:
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ws-uri.html
> >
> > I decided to get rid of the dates considering that this is really an
> > "editors" draft and I didn't want lots of versions floating around.
> >
> > Numerous updates based upon discussions at the TAG F2F, and
> comments from
> > Larry Masinter and Mark Baker.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > dave
>
> --
> Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
> Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
> http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
>

Received on Monday, 6 May 2002 23:09:15 UTC