- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 13:57:23 -0800
- To: "Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>, <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>
Hi Tony, Thanks. The WG has addressed many of the details of the issue (and reasonable people can disagree on their resolution), but not its overall substance. I'm not lie-down-in-the-road against the HTTP binding -- even if I don't think it's a great solution for the problem space -- provided that there were actually interoperating implementations of it, and people wanted to use it for itself, not just with the SOAP binding on top. However, I don't see that this is the case. So, I'm not satisfied by the proposed resolution. Note that I don't expect the WG to spend more time on this; closing the issue and marking it for discussion during the transition meeting would be adequate. Kind regards, On 2006/03/26, at 5:23 PM, Rogers, Tony wrote: > Dear Mark > > thank you for your Last Call comment on WSDL V2.0 part 2: Adjuncts > [1]. This comment was assigned issue number CR011, and addressed at > the most recent Face to Face meeting of the WS-Description Working > Group. It was discussed at some length, both as a whole, and as > individual points. In response to the individual points we reached > the following conclusions: > We agreed to remove section 6.4 (HTTP version) from the document > (this has been done) > We did not agree with the assertion that 6.6 constrains HTTP header > field values - we believe that simple types (particularly string) > suffice, particularly as this is not a general HTTP header > description language > 6.6.6 does not put all HTTP headers into a WSDL-specific namespace. > We are identifying components, not headers, and using the WSDL > restriction of one component per HTTP header to allow us to > identify the component with the header name - we are not > identifying the header > Although the interposing of an intermediary may well make transfer- > encoding information (6.9) worthless, we believe that it is a > useful optimisation for a large percentage of cases, so we decided > to retain it > We decided to take no action on the question of cookies (6.10) - > this topic has been discussed before, and although opinions are > divided on it, we are not advocating cookies, merely allowing the > documenting of their use. It is not really appropriate for the WSDL > standard to take a general position on cookies > We decided that no action was required to addressing WebDAV, > because it can be handled by extensibility, by a separate binding, > or via a different language (such as WADL). Note that the HTTP > binding supports the description of arbitrary HTTP methods beyond > GET, POST, PUT, and DELETE > It would be helpful if you could respond to the Working Group, > letting us know if you accept these resolutions of the points you > raised. > > [1]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/ > 2006Feb/0002.html > > > Tony Rogers > CA > Senior Architect, Development > tel +61 3 9727 8916 > fax +61 3 9727 3491 > tony.rogers@ca.com > co-chair, W3C WS-Description Working Group > co-chair, OASIS UDDI Spec Technical Committee -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 27 March 2006 21:57:42 UTC