W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > May 2003

Re: Content-free Header and Body elements

From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 14:46:18 -0400
To: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFB36BBBA1.8DFAC230-ON85256D27.0066B870-85256D27.00674DC0@us.ibm.com>

Rich,

I won't presume to answer the first part, however per section 5.1 [1], a 
SOAP Envelope
must have a soap:Body element information item, although that EII may be 
empty.

Hence,

>    <S:Envelope>
>       <S:Header><tns:foo/></S:Header>
>    </S:Envelope>
> and
>    <S:Envelope>
>    </S:Envelope>

are both invalid SOAP messages.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/#soapenv

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624

xml-dist-app-request@w3.org wrote on 05/15/2003 02:16:20 PM:

> 
> Are the following messages semantically equivalent (namespace 
> declarations omitted for brevity)?
>    <S:Envelope>
>       <S:Header></S:Header>
>       <S:Body><tns:foo/></S:Body>
>    </S:Envelope>
> and
>    <S:Envelope>
>       <S:Body><tns:foo/></S:Body>
>    </S:Envelope>
> 
> In other words, if there are no headers, are message processors allowed 
> to insert/delete an empty Header element?  I believe the answer is yes, 
> as I can't find text that says otherwise.
> 
> And what if there are no EII's for the Body, can that be omitted?
>    <S:Envelope>
>       <S:Header><tns:foo/></S:Header>
>    </S:Envelope>
> and
>    <S:Envelope>
>    </S:Envelope>
> 
> This has implications for message normalization and the ability to sign 
> SOAP messages.
>    /r$
> -- 
> Rich Salz, Chief Security Architect
> DataPower Technology         http://www.datapower.com
> XS40 XML Security Gateway    http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
> 
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2003 14:47:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:14 GMT