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

RE: Content-free Header and Body elements

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 00:26:09 -0700
Message-ID: <7C083876C492EB4BAAF6B3AE0732970E0B7E72AF@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Rich Salz" <rsalz@datapower.com>
Cc: "Christopher B Ferris" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

The intent was that the Infoset properties be preserved unmodified
except for the exclusions listed. That said, one COULD interpret Rule #1
as saying that if you have a message:

<soap:Envelope>
  <soap:Body>
  . . .
  </soap:Body>
</soap:Envelope>

then intermediaries CANNOT add any headers ( because no rule in[1]
allows insertion of <soap:Header> ). This is definitely undesirable.

I hesitate to say this, but I think this probably needs to be raised as
a PR issue.

Gudge

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Salz [mailto:rsalz@datapower.com] 
> Sent: 16 May 2003 02:51
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: Christopher B Ferris; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Content-free Header and Body elements
> 
> > OK, this is covered in[1]
> >
> > And no, you can't remove an empty Header element. My take 
> is so that 
> > you can sign it and say 'It is empty, there were no headers 
> sent with 
> > this message'
> 
> Does Rule #1 prevent an intermediary from adding <S:Header/> 
> if none is present?  That would be pinning an awful lot on 
> the meaning of "preserved"; perhaps "preserved unmodified" 
> was what was really meant?
> 
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/#soapinterminfoset
> 
>         /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 Friday, 16 May 2003 03:26:25 GMT

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