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

Re: Issue 140 bogus?

From: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 13:42:06 -0400
Message-ID: <3BB9FC6E.EAC90331@Sun.COM>
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@idoox.com>
CC: Stuart Williams <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, David Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Jacek Kopecky wrote:
>  Stuart,
>  I believe your issue with the section 2.3 of the first part of
> our draft spec is not an issue.
>  The actor URI, if present, is not specified to be anything in
> particular, it's just a URI that the targetted actor somehow
> knows is point at him. If instead of targetting the default actor
> with a missing actor URI we targetted it with the URI
> "http://www.w3.org/2001/09/soap-envelope/actor/default", the
> situation would be completely equivalent.
>  And yes, the set of Actor URIs a node acts as is an *outside*
> information to the envelope.
>  Best regards,
>                             Jacek Kopecky
>                             Idoox
>                             http://www.idoox.com/


I think that the point that Stuart raises actually has merit.
There is nothing explicit in the SOAP envelope that identifies
the ultimate intended recipient of a SOAP message.

What I think Henrik would say though is that there are any number
of ways by which you can identify within the SOAP envelope 
as well as or in addition to external to the SOAP envelope 
who/what is the intended recipient.

While I would agree that there certainly are any number of ways
to achieve this, it seems to me that it is not unreasonable
that the SOAP envelope carry this information in a standard
manner so that we don't end up with a gazillion different
and more than likely non-interoperable ways of achieving

The same applies to SOAPAction IMO. 


Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2001 13:42:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:16 UTC