W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > April 2002

RE: Proposal for dealing with issue 200: SOAPAction header vs. ac tion parameter

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 14:09:45 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F192AEE@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Christopher Ferris'" <chris.ferris@sun.com>, "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
> 
> -1
> 

:-( demonstrating my lack of knowledge of MIME. That said, 2a means no
generic determination of the soapyness of a message and... can we be
confident that there is a 'handy' parameter around to use with all the
existing media-types we might want to use - maybe multipart/* is all we'll
ever want to leverage.

Stuart

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@sun.com]
> Sent: 18 April 2002 13:23
> To: Williams, Stuart
> Cc: 'Mark Baker'; Henrik Frystyk Nielsen; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposal for dealing with issue 200: SOAPAction 
> header vs.
> ac tion parameter
> 
> 
> -1
> 
> If you want to identify the "tarball" as a SOAP message
> then this can be achieved using 2a at least for multipart/*
> you would have the 'type' parameter which would have
> 'application/soap+xml' as its value and that would identify
> the message as a SOAP message.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris
> 
> Williams, Stuart wrote:
> 
>
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 09:10:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:09 GMT