RE: HTTP binding options

+1 to the last sentence.  Though I'm not quite sure what "enabling the web
architecture" really means "which portion of the web architecture documented
by the TAG is precluded by various options" but let's not go there.  Suffice
that good URI support and leveraging HTTP are good requirements.

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Philippe Le Hegaret
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 10:59 AM
> To: Mark Baker
> Cc: Web Services Description
> Subject: Re: HTTP binding options
>
>
>
> On Mon, 2003-11-10 at 13:47, Mark Baker wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 09:51:11AM -0500, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> > > My concern here has nothing to do with REST, but with
> HTTP. We should
> > > take advantage of its functionalities.
> >
> > FWIW, REST, or at least an important part of it, is a guide
> to how to
> > take *full* advantage of HTTP.  So if, as you say, your
> concern is with
> > HTTP, then it should also be with REST.
>
> Enabling the Web architecture in WSDL should be the primary goal. True
> enough, an important part of the REST architecture has been
> baked in the
> Web Architecture, but reducing the debate of the HTTP binding around
> REST is misleading. WSDL and SOAP must be able to use the URI
> space, and
> take advantage of the HTTP protocol.
>
> Philippe
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 10 November 2003 14:13:33 UTC