RE: HTTP Binding Issues

Thanks for the response.  It means the first option, that URL support is in
wsdl 1.2.  I was worried the httpurl support was being dropped.

Any discussion of expanding to non-http uris?  I would see there being a
URIReplacement, with particular HTTP method bindings..

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Jeffrey Schlimmer
> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 6:26 PM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE: HTTP Binding Issues
> 
> 
> 
> Dave, glad to hear you're interested in helping.
> 
> I didn't quite understand your question, so I'll answer a related one.
> At the teleconference earlier this week, the WG decided _not_ 
> to change
> the HTTP binding in WSDL 1.2 to allow encoding complex types or
> attributes in a request URL (Issues 6a, 41); HTTP request URLs will
> remain segmented, flat, and (somewhat) human readable.
> 
> We also decided to use language compatible with the upcoming IRI
> recommendation for non-ASCII characters in a request URI (Issues 6b,
> 6d).
> 
> Furthermore, IBM\Arthur and W3C\Philipe volunteered to write up
> proposals for URL replacement and for allowing binding to various HTTP
> methods.
> 
> We postponed discussion of other HTTP-related binding issues 
> because we
> ran out of time.
> 
> --Jeff
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
> On
> > Behalf Of David Orchard
> > Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 12:19 PM
> > To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: HTTP Binding Issues
> > 
> > Are the "leave-as-is" dispositions mean leave the WSDL 1.1 work in
> 1.2, or
> > does it mean leave WSDL 1.2 as-is, that is without the 1.1 work?
> > 
> > I must admit, I'm rather surprised at the sudden motivation to do a
> > scenario driven approach.  I'd be glad to help out on any 
> scenarios in
> > this area.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Dave
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> > > Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 4:10 PM
> > > To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > > Subject: HTTP Binding Issues
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I took an ACTION to restart discussion on the HTTP binding
> > > issues.  Most
> > > of the issues are about increasing the functionality available in
> the
> > > HTTP binding.  Jeffrey did a great job of summarizing the 
> issues and
> > > proposing dispositions [1] based on the principle of not
> > > increasing the
> > > functionality in the HTTP binding.  His rationale is an
> > > obvious lack of
> > > interest in this functionality by the WG.
> > >
> > > I propose we first address this larger question of what 
> scenarios we
> > > envision the HTTP binding being used in, and how expressive
> > > the binding
> > > need to be in order to satisfy the needs of those scenarios.
> > > Should we
> > > increase the expressive power of the HTTP binding?
> > >
> > > I will set aside time at this week's telcon to address this
> question.
> > > After we've reached some consensus on that question, the 
> individual
> > > issues Jeffrey categorizes and proposes resolutions to [1] should
> > > proceed more quickly.
> > >
> > > [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jun/0102.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> 
>