- From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
- Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 21:52:22 -0500
- 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