W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > April 2003

RE: Proposal to set arbitrary HTTP header fields

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:36:57 -0700
To: "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "'Philippe Le Hegaret'" <plh@w3.org>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <028601c2ff87$c9aed020$420ba8c0@beasys.com>

I really support this kind of work.  Would it be possible to express message
parts in header fields?  Imagine a use case where travel agent web services
is doing a query for flights, and the query requires an XQuery and HTTP is
used (so HTTP POST is required).  There would be a username/password,
conversationID, and the xml content.  Each of these parts can be bound to
different places in the message stream.  The username/password is bound to
the HTTP mechanisms, the conversationID into the URI, and the XQuery into
the SOAP body.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Jean-Jacques Moreau
> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 9:16 AM
> To: Philippe Le Hegaret
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Proposal to set arbitrary HTTP header fields
> There was earlier a desire from some members of the WG to be able
> to set arbitrary HTTP header fields. This proposal replaces my
> earlier proposal at [1], which we had postponed until we work on
> features had started.
> HTTP binding:
>   feature
>    http://www.example.org/2003/03/http/header-field
>    property
>     name:
> http://www.example.org/2003/03/http/header-field/name-value-pair
>     type: xsd:array
> Jean-Jacques.
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Sep/0050.html
> Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> > issue: and what about the HTTP headers?
> >
> > How useful would it be? The accept, accept-ranges, content-type,
> > authorization, cache-control, connection and content-length
> are already
> > fixed by other means (security, authorization features).
> accept-language
> > has nothing to do in the WSDL. Do we have an example of an
> header that
> > needs to be fixed and should not be represented in a more
> abstract way?
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2003 13:36:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:23 GMT