- From: Jones, Matthew <MJones@NetSilicon.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 12:47:49 -0700
- To: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Paul wrote: >Rich Salz wrote: >> >> Modulo Larry's note about "don't rehash; send links", I really do not >> understand the objection: >> >> > The gist of the problem is that the current HTTP binding uses HTTP POST >> > requests. >> >> IS there a fundamental difference between sending a soap message and >> sending form data? If so, what is it? > >One difference is that when I build an HTML form I have a choice of GET >or POST. Google uses GET. Babelfish uses POST. In fact I believe that >GET is the default. > >Will SOAP allow me to choose? Also, I'd really appreciate it if SOAP >would allow me to choose how much or how little to put in the URL-line >instead of in the message body. But that implies a tighter binding >between SOAP and HTTP than just using HTTP as a more or less invisible >transport. While in practice nearly anything may be possible, realistically you can't send anything in a GET, except a URL and CGI. You can't send XML in GET. For GET you don't specify a content-type (because there is no content) so you wouldn't know the type of data that is sent. Also you can't have newlines in a GET. I suppose that you could assume a certain content-type (XML) and encode the whole XML file as CGI and in theory that might work. But I think that really would be a perversion and if the file were large I would guess that many servers would have trouble with it. Matthew Jones mjones@netsilicon.com
Received on Monday, 27 August 2001 15:48:22 UTC