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

RE: SOAPAction Proposal

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 21:18:47 -0700
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D0297CBEE@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Doug Davis" <dug@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>, "XML Protocol Comments" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Didn't we already have this discussion? It seems to be the same question
that you asked in [1]. If so then my answer is still [2].

Listen, we have roughly 90 issues and counting that we need to address.
We have to keep moving. 

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Apr/0148.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Apr/0156.html

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com
http://magnet

>I guess I'd like to know what would be missing from SOAP
>if the SOAPAction header did go away?  What would services,
>firewalls...(whatever) not be able to do through some other 
>means? (And by some other means I mean in some means that is 
>at least a little bit natural and not convoluted) You surely 
>could a message as a  SOAP messages (and give it a hint) 
>through the use of content-types and/or through the request- 
>URI, right?  So what would be missing? -Dug
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2001 01:08:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:01 GMT