- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 00:09:31 -0500
- To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Cc: WS Description List <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 04:29:23PM -0800, Jonathan Marsh wrote: > Marsh: issue is can one get away without operation names when > using HTTP. > Sanjiva: drop issue > DaveO: is he just proposing that the HTTP operations be described > as wsdl operations? > ACTION: Marsh to contact Mark Baker and see if @method satisfies > him. While @method and the whole HTTP binding are welcome progress, I don't believe they address issue 64. But yours and DaveO's comment there hit the nail on the head, IMO. I think there's some useful ideas in my earlier proposal, which was to do exactly what DaveO is suggesting (and not just for HTTP, but for all application protocols). Perhaps you guys could give it a re-read-over and let me know if you think any of the options described there are do-able, or alternately if you have some other ideas for how it might be done ... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jan/0103.html Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Sunday, 4 April 2004 00:12:01 UTC