W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > July 2004

Re: Issue 189 proposals:

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:44:01 +0200
To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040728074401.GB13609@w3.org>
Hi Dave.

I am afraid that your answer didn't completely clear up my confusion.

* David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com> [2004-07-26 14:44-0700]
> Hugo has already found his answer, which hopefully is that the rest of
> the xml is not serialized at all.

Here, you are saying that the rest of the XML is not serialized at all
— in the message body, I presume.

* David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com> [2004-07-27 11:48-0700]
> The 2 cases where part of the data that is in the body may also need to
> go into the URI, but the entire element should be serialized, are PUT
> and POST, where there is a body and serialization into the URI.  The
> point is that there are 2 aspects of serialization for these: the
> serialization into the body and into the URI.
> GET and DELETE have only a serialization into the URI, but they can also
> do with truncating the instance data.  In this case, then the same type
> could be used for GET/PUT/POST/DELETE operations.
> Imagine where there is an Artist with an ID element, and the ID element
> is the unique identifier (and damn it, we should allow attributes for
> this case!!).
> <Artist><ArtistID>5</ArtistID><stuff/></Artist>
> I may want to PUT a new artist using ArtistID 5, ie PUT /Artist/5.  This
> is something like location="/Artist/{ArtistID/}.  Same holds true for
> POST, where the client could be suggesting that /Artist/5 is the URI for
> the new artist.  The body of these would be the entire Artist element.

And here you are saying that the message body is the entire Artist
element, which I understand to mean that the rest of the XML is being

The second version makes sense to me, otherwise we would lose
information. So this is the one I have implemented. Please check: Case elements NOT cited in whttp:location attribute

and: Serialization in the message body

If I still got it wrong, can you please send me a diff or an updated
XMLspec version of Part 3?

Sorry to be having difficulties with this one.



Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/

Received on Wednesday, 28 July 2004 03:44:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:43 UTC