W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlp-comments@w3.org > April 2002

Re: SOAPAction header vs. action parameter

From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 21:52:22 -0500
Message-ID: <3CA91CE6.20803@sun.com>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
CC: xmlp-comments@w3.org, David Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>
Suggest this be raised as an issue.

Mark Baker wrote:

> All,
> IIRC, we agreed to place the "action" parameter on the
> application/soap+xml media type.  Section 7.5 of the latest version of
> part 2 of the specification doesn't talk about this at all, it only
> talks about the use of the SOAPAction header.
> We should talk about whether we want to support two mechanisms for
> specifying "action" or not.  If we want or need to support both, we
> should define what happens if they're both used at the same time.  We
> also need to specify how the RequiredSOAPActionURI property interacts
> with the action parameter in this case.
> I'm not sure that I have much of an opinion, but I'm all for keeping
> things simple, so I'd suggest that removing the SOAPAction header
> completely and making RequiredSOAPActionURI apply to the action
> parameter instead of the header, would be the easiest thing to do.
> But I don't know whose feet that would step on.
> Also, no where is it stated what the SOAPAction property actually
> means any more.  I know "intent" was fairly vague, but certainly,
> saying nothing can't be considered an improvement! 8-)  I need an
> explanation for the media type draft too.
> Thanks.
> MB
Received on Monday, 1 April 2002 21:53:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:16:58 UTC