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

Re: SOAPAction Proposal

From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 09:42:07 -0400
To: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
Cc: mnot@mnot.net, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF5066E691.EA73207C-ON85256ABD.004AE3BE@raleigh.ibm.com >
Agreed - which is why I do think we should we say something
along the lines of what's I've proposed [1] - which is just
to say that it's optional (noting the change from soap 1.1)
-Dug

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Aug/0266.html



Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com on 09/04/2001 09:27:31 AM

To:   Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   mnot@mnot.net, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Subject:  Re: SOAPAction Proposal



Doug Davis writes:

>> We don't say "don't send a FOO header
>> unless there is a particular purpose
>> for it", so I'm not sure we should
>> for SOAPAction.

Well, I have no strong feeling as to the right solution for SOAPAction,
but I do think it's presence in the SOAP v1.1 spec gives it special status
in our work.  I think users will expect us to give some guidance regarding
its use, even if we do so only in a note.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2001 09:42:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:03 GMT