RE: [WhenToUseGet-7] Re: TAG document: SOAP HTTP GET binding avai lable

Hi Tim,

Hmmmm... my preference for the 'Content-Location' approach is because it
works regardless of the style of SOAP message in use. 

The proposed URL-encoding approach works for some subset of SOAP messages
that 1) fit the RPC conventions and 2) have only 'simple' parameter values.
We could debate whether this hits a 60-40 or even 80-20 point - but unless
we work on a URL encoding for almost arbitrary XML, there will be resource
identifying SOAP messages that cannot be encoded into a URL.

I'm not sure I buy what appears to be a "Current servers don't or can't
generate Content-Location headers." argument. It may be true, but it does
seem a little surprising.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Bray []
> Sent: 20 May 2002 19:21
> To: Williams, Stuart
> Cc:;
> Subject: Re: [WhenToUseGet-7] Re: TAG document: SOAP HTTP GET binding
> avai lable
> Williams, Stuart wrote:
> > Hi Tim,
> > 
> > Personnally, I prefer the Content-Location approach.
> On reflection, I think I disagree, and favor the URL-encoding 
> approach. 
>   I agree the Content-location approach is slightly (but only slightly) 
> architecturally cleaner, but I want to go with URL-encoding for one 
> simple reason: Content-location requires that that extra implementation 
> work be done on the server side, whereas URL-encoding can be had for 
> free.  Given the way the world works, the extra work just won't get done 
> most times, and the negative effect we're trying to avoid (the universe 
> of Web Services vanishes from URI-space forever) comes to pass. -Tim

Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2002 07:24:27 UTC