- From: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 13:29:26 -0400
- To: "Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>, "Francis McCabe" <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>, "Hao He" <Hao.He@thomson.com.au>
- Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
I think Mark's point is that when you use the HTTP GET Web Feature, you don't *send* a message to the resource. You simply GET the representation, which happens to be a SOAP message. Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> To: "Francis McCabe" <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>; "Hao He" <Hao.He@thomson.com.au> Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 12:50 PM Subject: RE: Proposed text for 2.2.21 (take 2) > > > I would strongly suggest removing the references to using HTTP GET as a > > way of sending messages. Mark B is right on this one. If you want to > > use HTTP, the appropriate verb is POST. > > I don't fully understand your comment. I think Hao was referring to the Web Method feature of SOAP 1.2. According to that feature, an HTTP GET represents a particular binding of a SOAP Response MEP. So an HTTP GET used in this context is a legitimate realization of the type of messages we address in this spec. > > > I suggest further that the plain XML reference is not one that has been > > endorsed by the group. Indeed I recall significant pushback on this one... > > I agree. > > Ugo > >
Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 13:31:17 UTC