- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:02:50 -0500
- To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 08:13:14PM +0600, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: > > I'd say we support HTTP GET for idempotent operations just fine- > if you read what Mark said, the idea of the URI being dependent > on the message contents is not a required part of Web architecture. > > Even the SOAP Response MEP doesn't go as far as (5) - that has > a no-input requirement. So we're really in virgin territory by > going that far and its at a pretty high price (lots of restrictions > on the input (follow RPC style + simple types only), weirdness of > whether the input is really the input and a pretty complex language > to boot). From a Web POV, #5 is really a GET based form, except as WSDL it would typically be discovered at design time rather than at runtime. I'm not sure if the WG wants to make the, IMO, very large leap from service description language to form declaration language. If it does, I'd be happy to offer my assistance, as I've spent a lot of studying hypermedia interactions and the role that forms play there. FWIW, that work lead me to produce an RDF based forms language; you should be easily able to spot the crossover point between it and WSDL 1.1 urlReplacement; http://www.markbaker.ca/2003/05/RDF-Forms/ Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Thursday, 13 November 2003 10:00:47 UTC