RE: http binding

Most of the discussion of this topic took place under LC304, with one of
the options for resolving that issue to include your proposal.  In the
option including your proposal was defeated by a chad vote - one of the
main reasons AIUI for voting for the simpler proposal (which doesn't
support image/jpeg without extension) was that we're simply too close to
CR to add such significant new functionality, and it can be done through
extension fairly readily.  Minutes will be posted shortly (though they
don't capture fully the breadth of discussion we had on this topic.)

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 3:49 AM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: http binding


What happened with the discussion related to describing a service that 
returns an image? I don't see a fix for that in the draft; am I missing 
something? (Maybe it was decided against at the F2F :( ?)

Also, I think we're missing the most natural serialization format for 
content that has binary stuff: multipart/related. Basically do the same 
that XOP/MTOM does but without the SOAP envelope wrapping the main 
payload. Having that would allow us to bind any SOAP payload to HTTP 
without any loss of performance.

Sanjiva.
-- 
Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://www.wso2.com/
email: sanjiva@wso2.com; cell: +94 77 787 6880; fax: +1 509 691 2000

"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform."

Received on Monday, 14 November 2005 20:43:06 UTC