- From: Youenn Fablet <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:51:27 +0100
- To: www-ws-desc <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
From last week telcon, different options were proposed to solve (partially) CR117. Here is a summary: 1) Enable two serialization modes (encoded and raw) Pros: the most powerful option, simple to explain and understand Cons: new feature, may require a new Last Call 2) Status quo Pros: enable dynamic URI constructions Cons: greatly limit the usability of GET and POST/x-www-form-urlencoded for web services Notes: 1) IIRC, the SPARQL description (the only real example of the HTTP binding, AFAIKT) may lead to ambiguous requests, since strings and uris values are serialized as query string parameters 2) IIRC, form web clients generally URL-encode parameter values before inserting them in the query string. WSDL would not be able to describe the servers processing these requests. 3) Select Encoded mode Pros: simple to explain, ambiguity is then easy to check. Cons: Disable the ability to describe some REST-style services Note: Raw mode use cases may be partially enabled with the encoded mode by splitting a single parameter value into several parameter values. <element name="date"/> would be changed as <element name="year"/><element name="month"/><element name="day"/> The one case that cannot be addressed with the encoded mode is when a parameter value contains a variable number of path steps, which may not be that widespread. 4) Raw mode for path parameter values/Encoded mode for query parameter values Pros: No LC needed. Enable dynamic path construction. Also enable SPARQL, web forms scenarios and all simple use of HTTP GET. Ambiguity is easy to check for simple location templates. Cons: Less understandable (?) than the other options. URL-Encoding query parameter values is quite widespread and, IMHO, we should not go against that. The current status quo is also vague about whether URL-encoding is used or not for query parameter values. I also did not heard anybody arguing for the support of dynamic query string parameters... Hope this helps going forward with this issue, Youenn
Received on Monday, 29 January 2007 13:51:38 UTC