W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > April 2001

RE: [soapbuilders] question re: namespace hierarchies

From: Dick Brooks <dick@8760.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:49:30 -0500
To: <frystyk@microsoft.com>, <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

The SOAP 1.1 spec says the following about SOAPAction:

"6.1.1 The SOAPAction HTTP Header Field
The SOAPAction HTTP request header field can be used to indicate the intent
of the SOAP HTTP request. The value is a URI identifying the intent. SOAP
places no restrictions on the format or specificity of the URI or that it is
resolvable. An HTTP client MUST use this header field when issuing a SOAP
HTTP Request."

Can you explain why you feel ebXML must use an absolute URI for SOAPAction,
given the above description of SOAPAction within the SOAP spec.


Dick Brooks
Group 8760
110 12th Street North
Birmingham, AL 35203
Fax: 205-250-8057

InsideAgent - Empowering e-commerce solutions

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Frystyk
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 5:39 PM
> To: Dick Brooks; soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] question re: namespace hierarchies
> >All the web servers I've used (IIS, Apache, Netscape) provide
> >access to the HTTP headers and the SOAPAction contents are
> >easily accessible to a CGI, ISAPI, NSAPI or servlet program.
> >Once a message broker has the SOAPAction data it can use the
> >information without any further expansion (it's relative to
> >the Host/HTTP POST URI of the message broker).
> This actually makes no difference - the problem is that ebXML can say
> nothing about these relative URIs: neither what they identify nor how
> they relate. It would be the same if HTTP tried to say that all URIs
> that have the word "cgi" somewhere in the string is a cgi script. The
> model behind URIs does not allow this.
> In order for the ebXML spec to say anything about the intent of the
> message, it has to use an absolute URI. What's the problem in using an
> absolute URI?
> Henrik
Received on Friday, 20 April 2001 18:50:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:12 UTC