- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 11:27:01 -0500 (EST)
- To: LMM@acm.org
- Cc: mogul@pa.dec.com ('Jeffrey Mogul'), joris.dobbelsteen@mail.com ('Joris Dobbelsteen'), http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
I believe Mark is busy with other things right now, so I'll hazard a response. > I think that the requirement is not merely that the header is > "useful" but that its interaction with the rest of HTTP has > been analyzed and documented. Lots of header extensions are > poorly considered and not interoperable as documented. > > The original motivation -- to allow "SOAPAction" as a HTTP > header by putting it in a registry that would be established > by the XML protocol group -- is pretty suspect. They don't > need a "registry" to allow SOAPAction, they need to document > how SOAPAction is used, what it means, and how to implement > it interoperably. Is it end-to-end or hop-to-hop? Is it allowed > in trailers as well as headers? Is it only allowed with requests, > responses, only some methods or with all? How does it interact > with other parts of HTTP semantics? Definitely. IIRC, Mark's thinking was that we would do all that, *and* establish a registry for others to use. But I agree with the sentiment here that we only really need an index, not a registry. MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2001 16:41:21 UTC