- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 20:53:26 -0400
- To: Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin@zandar.com>
- Cc: www-archive@w3.org
Hi. Sorry for the delay; lots on my plate... On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 05:07:32AM -0400, Sergey Beryozkin wrote: > Mark, > > can you please answer just on this question : > > > > There, I would have used "SOAPAction", except that SOAPAction doesn't > > > support a mandatory strength declaration; i.e. it can't say "this > > > extension is critical to understanding the semantics of this message". > > What is required for "SOAPAction" to support it and for external parties to > recognize that "SOAPAction" specifies such an extension ? Well, it's too late for SOAPAction. But if we were still working on SOAP 1.2, I would use something like; Content-Type: application/soap+xml; action="some-uri"; strength="must" That would indicate that the action URI MUST be recognized, or else a fault must be generated. If strength were not specified, or had value "may", then it would work as SOAPAction did. Mark.
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2003 20:49:23 UTC