Hi Umit, This looks like a very good start. I also want to study how this interacts with the HTTP binding, but that'll have to wait. On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 01:03:17PM -0800, Umit Yalcinalp wrote: > The value of the SOAP Action property, > http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/features/action/Action, is a URI that > is constructed by using the value of the component designator that > uniquely identifies the operation utilizing the fragment identifier > that refers to the specific operation[2]. That assumes that SOAPAction's value is an operation name, but that isn't necessarily the case. It is for declaring "intent", which may also be a *type* in some cases. What are your thoughts regarding how this can be used when the operation is inherited from the application protocol? Would you recommend a specific URI for operationName that indicates this? As it relates to my "ambiguous interface semantics" issue[1], I think that your specification provides a sound answer for the case when the feature is used; that a successful response to a request message using this feature means that the operation requested with the feature was performed. I guess that the general case still needs addressing though; what if the operation is in SOAPAction, wsa:action, the application protocol, some other header, the body (without style=rpc), or outside the message entirely? (ouch, did I get all of them? 8-) [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Nov/0084.html Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.caReceived on Thursday, 22 January 2004 00:10:03 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:28 GMT