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

Re: SOAPAction Proposal

From: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 22:48:23 +0100
Message-ID: <003601c0d676$47508c40$0300a8c0@greyarea>
To: <frystyk@microsoft.com>, "XML Protocol Comments" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <frystyk@microsoft.com>
To: "'Martin Gudgin'" <marting@develop.com>; "XML Protocol Comments"
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 3:49 PM
Subject: RE: SOAPAction Proposal

> Unfortunately this doesn't work as namespace URI themselves can have a
> '#' in them hence generating an invalid URI.

Good point, this would esp. be an issue in the case of RDF

> Think of the SOAPAction value as a sort of content type and how content
> type is used for HTML and other formats. We could have had different
> content type values for each HTML version - including with and without
> tables, scripts, math, etc. etc.
> But we didn't because the hint that this was "HTML" was good enough and
> gave the right level of granularity for people who wanted to do an first
> order filtering/inspection of the stuff.

So why don't we use text/xml+soap or some such in Content-Type and ditch

> Making a high level hint about the content tightly bound to the specific
> instance of a specific message is fundamentally a bad idea.

OK, then let's turn the question on it's head. What *does* go in SOAPAction
and what is it used for? ( I realise there may be multiple answers... )

Received on Sunday, 6 May 2001 17:50:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:13 UTC