- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 14:23:14 -0800
- To: "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>, "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>
- Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
The issue of footers/trailers is a good one and I think will lead to much interesting discussion - it certainly did in HTTP where it was introduced in HTTP/1.1 [31]. The SOAP/1.1 spec is somewhat ambiguous on the matter as it allows "other stuff" after the body but doesn't say what to use it for or what the processing model is. I actually thought there was an issue listed on the SOAP issues list [30] but apparently I missed it. I will add one now. I would note, however, that the glossary doesn't *define* much in terms of a protocol. It defines a set of terms by which we can talk about the "thingies" mentioned in the requirements document so I don't see a conflict here. I think it would be nice to express this as a requirement and a usage scenario - maybe expand a little on Yves' scenario below. > However, I think that the glossary goes beyond this, defining[10] the > XP message as containing an XP header and an XP body, ruling out, for > example, footers. > > At the December face-to-face[9], Yves mentioned using footers (for > example for MD5 sums): > > Yves: Nothing precludes you from adding information at the > end. If you > put headers at the beginning of the message for intermediaries, > doesn't preclude you Henrik [30] http://msdn.microsoft.com/xml/general/soapspec_issues.asp [31] http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.40 [32] http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/#_Toc478383494
Received on Monday, 22 January 2001 17:23:51 UTC