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 11:54:04 -0400
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com, mnot@mnot.net, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFA02365CF.798AAE50-ON85256ABD.0052F310@raleigh.ibm.com >
Would it still be too vague if I just say...that's an
implementation choice?  8-)
I can see this coming up in the Binding Task Force
Group's discussions but in general I'm not sure the
spec should say anything that specific about it.
We don't tell people when/if they need to use cookies,
that's an implementation choice - I kind of view this
along the same lines.
-Dug


"Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com> on 09/04/2001 11:02:34 AM

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



Dug,

If we were to say SOAPAction is optional, for whom is it optional?

1) People deploying a Web Service?
2) People designing/developing a Web Service?
3) People designing/developing a (generic) Web Services Platform?
4) People designing/developing a (generic) Web Services Client platform?

BTW this is not to take a particular position wrt to the arguement, I just
find optional a little vague unless we are clear about who we intend to be
able to exercise the option.

Thanks,

Stuart

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: 04 September 2001 14:42
> To: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
> Cc: mnot@mnot.net; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: SOAPAction Proposal
>
>
> 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 11:55:01 GMT

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