RE: Action item: HTTP binding for accepts header and output Serialization.

I'm not sure where this is going.  Sounds like there are more issues
that we need to discuss prior to resolving this editorial AI?  Or is
this a proposal for additional functionality?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Hugo Haas
> Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 8:40 AM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: Web Services Description
> Subject: Re: Action item: HTTP binding for accepts header and output
> Serialization.
> 
> * Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org> [2004-06-24 12:39+0200]
> > However, I am not sure how this feature would work with the input
> > using GET and foo:myDataType in your example, though I have to admit
I
> > don't get what the current one does in this case either.
> 
> I've just read the new version of the Application Data feature and
> realized that it's what you meant when you said Abstract Data feature
> which is the new name for ADD, which threw me off.
> 
> Looking at the action item from [1], I think that there are two things
> to address:
> - how expectedMediaType impacts (input|output|fault)Serialization.
> - how expectedMediaType impacts the Accept header.
> 
> For the former, as I said in my previous email, I think that we can
> have a feature which says that the value of
> (input|output|fault)Serialization in inherited from the
> expectedMediaType information on the message reference. Note that it
> would mean that the serialization values could be a list of media
> types, which I guess is OK in this particular case.
> 
> Regarding the latter, let me first see if I understand your example
> correctly: your document says that the input message may contain an
> Accept header, without specifying the value. I don't think that we
> even need to say that. I think that this is always the case that an
> HTTP message may contain an Accept header, and that the application
> should deal with this accordingly. What we can say, which would I
> think discharge the WG of the action item, would be to say that:
> - expectedMediaType placed on an input message is equivalent to an
>   Accept header from the POV of the service.
> - an HTTP request from a requester agent may always contain an Accept
>   header; the value of the header should take into account the
>   expectedMediaType information for subsequent output messages from
>   the provider agent to make sense.
> 
> Does that make sense?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Hugo
> 
>   1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0074.html
> --
> Hugo Haas - W3C
> mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/

Received on Wednesday, 30 June 2004 14:56:18 UTC