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

Re: SOAPAction Proposal

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 09:01:35 -0700
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Cc: Rich Salz <rsalz@zolera.com>, Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com, Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <20010904090130.A2093@mnot.net>

Some implementations automagically generate and/or require it, IIRC.
Stuart's question is framed very nicely; the optionality should be
the service provider's/service consumer's, not the particular stack
implementation's. Perhaps if we target (groan) the 'optional', this
would be resolved to everyone's satisfaction?

On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 08:53:54AM -0700, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
> >Many implementations already generate SOAPAction, and some 
> >have specific requirements for it; if they read 'optional', 
> >they may just continue to generate it, leaving us in an interop mess.
> If think the optional lies in whether a service provider wants to use it
> or not. If it is "exported" as part of that web service then I think the
> client is expected to use it. If not then clearly the client doesn't
> have to.
> Given that the value is not computed and the client has to be told when
> to use it by the service provider, I am not sure I can see what
> interoperability problems it causes?
> Henrik

Mark Nottingham
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2001 12:01:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:15 UTC