- From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:46:17 -0700
- To: "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
"David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com> wrote: > I, and I think the TAG, agree with having a WSDL definition for a HTTP > GET-in/SOAP out binding that is orthogonal to the SOAP POST binding. > Could this be added to the WSDL issues list, as it sounds like you are > in agreement as well. Is there a proposal on the table for the WG to provide a second, normative binding for HTTP/1.1 GET, separate from a binding for HTTP/1.1 POST? Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] wrote: >FYI: A requirement for us to support the new SOAP MEP (the HTTP-GET-in / >HTTP-SOAP-out case). I think Issue 26 [1] covers this. >Also, Paul Prescod would like it to be possible >to bind different HTTP operations on a per operation basis rather than >just on a per-portType basis. I think both these requirements make >sense. Issues 53 [2] and 54 [3] already cover this. In [4], I proposed that we do not make these changes in the HTTP GET / POST binding that the WG produces due to lack of interest within the WG. There was no pushback on this during the last teleconference, but I see that we have another opportunity to discuss it at the teleconference tomorrow. --Jeff [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x26 [2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x53 [3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x54 [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jun/0102.html
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2002 18:46:49 UTC