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

RE: SOAPAction Proposal

From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 05:25:51 -0700
To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>, "XML Protocol Comments" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF62216B84.F4CEEC54-ON85256A46.00443499@raleigh.ibm.com >
Actually no I don't think this has been answered. You keep tell me what
you see the SOAPAction field should (and should not) be used for but
I'd like to know why some of the other, pre-existing, HTTP fields
(including
the request-uri) can not be used to satisfy those needs.
-Dug


"Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com> on 05/07/2001 09:18:47 PM

To:   Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>, "XML Protocol Comments"
      <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Subject:  RE: SOAPAction Proposal




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 08:26:13 GMT

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