W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > September 2006

RE: Minutes, 14 Sep 2006 WS Description WG telcon

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 09:18:20 -0700
To: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>, "paul.downey@bt.com" <paul.downey@bt.com>
CC: "sanjiva@wso2.com" <sanjiva@wso2.com>, "www-ws-desc@w3.org" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, "www-ws-desc-request@w3.org" <www-ws-desc-request@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A1517682D206EF4ABF08EA2A8C4AB26312DF511F@NA-EXMSG-C108.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
My impression is that at this point the only part of the HTTP binding that's at risk of being removed are the parts called out in the draft, namely the serialization of instance data in parts of the HTTP request IRI - the use of curly braces with the IRI style.

I haven't heard anyone who plans to implement the HTTP binding saying they won't also implement this part.  Is there any evidence to suggest this part (6.7.1) should be cut?  Is it just too early to tell?

From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 6:51 AM
To: paul.downey@bt.com
Cc: Jonathan Marsh; sanjiva@wso2.com; www-ws-desc@w3.org; www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Subject: RE: Minutes, 14 Sep 2006 WS Description WG telcon


I think there is a lot of value in the HTTP binding because it closes the gap between what WSDL 1.1 could describe and what developers are actually using for things like AJAX. I'm sure this won't satisfy REST purists, but even the ability to use GET instead of POST is a welcome improvement.

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca

Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org

09/18/2006 09:11 AM


<sanjiva@wso2.com>, <jmarsh@microsoft.com>




RE: Minutes, 14 Sep 2006 WS Description WG telcon

Hi Sanjiva

>> <pauld> sees more benefit in resource centric approaches such as WADL
>> for REST; WSDL 2.0 could be useful for people interested in POX

> WADL can waddle along and defined whatever they want. That doesn't mean we
> need to pull this out. If users don't want both let market forces decide
> the "winner".

+1 FWIW, I was trying to emphasise the difference between WSDL HTTP
which is great for describing messaging systems, but shouldn't get
mired by being sold as some kind of REST description language.

> WSDL's HTTP binding is not about REST! Its about describing how to
> exchange WSDL messages over raw HTTP without SOAP.


Received on Monday, 18 September 2006 16:24:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:07:01 UTC