- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 08:47:12 -0700
- To: "Scott Lawrence" <slawrence@virata.com>, "Dick Brooks" <dick@8760.COM>
- Cc: <moore@cs.utk.edu>, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@akamai.com>, <ietf@ietf.org>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Hi Scott, Just as a heads-up - SOAP/1.1 [1] changed this to allow any URI in the SOAPAction header field so this should not be a problem anymore. Henrik [1] http://www.w3.org/tr/soap/ >As for the specific question that began this thread (whether the >SOAPAction header is useful or not), I can offer an implementation >perspective. We've implemented the 0.9 version of SOAP as a part of >our UPnP implementation. SOAP/0.9 is carried in HTTP and does >include the SOAPAction header. It also includes the same >information (the action identifier) in the XML body of the message. > We found the potential conflict between these to be a major pain >to deal with, especially since the namespace was represented >differently in the header and body (which meant that the comparison >had to be namespace-aware, it couldn't just be the equivalent of >strcmp).
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2001 15:28:39 UTC