- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:22:57 +0100
- To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- CC: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, public-ws-pnf-tf@w3.org, Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>, Glen Daniels <gdaniels@macromedia.com>
The WG wanted a way to set the value of certain HTTP header fields (Jacek in particular, I think). An earlier, non feature based proposal was postponed until work on features resumed. So, yes, some have found this feature (sic) useful. JJ. Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: > On Fri, 2003-03-28 at 07:21, Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote: > >>Sounds good. What about adding the following feature, to cover setting >>HTTP header fields, which we've postponed[1] until features were available? > > > How useful would it be? The accept, accept-ranges, content-type, > authorization, cache-control, connection and content-length are already > fixed by other means. accept-language has nothing to do in the WSDL. Do > you have an example of an header that needs to be fixed and should not > be represented in a more abstract way? > > >>HTTP binding: >> feature >> http://www.example.org/2003/03/http/header-field >> property >> name: http://www.example.org/2003/03/http/header-field/name >> type: xsd:string >> property >> name: http://www.example.org/2003/03/http/header-field/value >> type: xsd:string > > > How do you set two headers with the approach? > > >>We could also generalize this features for any protocol, not just HTTP, >>i.e. define it at the abstract level. > > > imho, we should focus on the needs themselves, not the way they are > represented in the protocol. Authorization is a good example of such > case. > > Philippe
Received on Friday, 28 March 2003 12:23:33 UTC