- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 21:39:36 -0400
- To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
I agree with Henrik that SOAPAction is akin to Content-Type (at least
when used and documented properly 8-). Perhaps if the media type that
was used supported describing this extended type information, a new
header wouldn't be necessary.
text/xml and application/xml don't include any parameter that would
allow for this information to be carried. I suppose we could attempt to
updated RFC 3023 to add one, but given the other issues with using them
(as discussed here), I suggest that using a media type of
application/[soap|xmlp]+xml with a suitably named parameter
("namespace"?) may be the easiest way to go ... assuming of course, that
SOAPAction is still unfavourable to so many.
FWIW, I'm ok with SOAPAction. If you buy the extended type argument,
then this discussion is about syntax. But perhaps a syntax better
suited to describing what SOAPAction aims to achieve isn't such a bad
thing.
MB
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2001 21:40:17 UTC