- From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 16:41:05 -0500
- To: www-tag@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
/ "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr> was heard to say:
| SOAP's processing model is order agnostic,
But if that's true, then the arguments against PIs that talk about
what happens if a header is removed by an intermediary are totally
bogus. If the headers are unordered, then the PIs are unordered as
well. That means I'd either have to put them inside a header or they'd
have to apply to the whole header. So now I don't see the problem with
PIs at all.
| so you would have to write
| your example this way.
No, I don't have to. I can write it just the way I wrote it. :-)
But you've demonstrated that order isn't an issue with the PIs.
| Notice the use of the mustUnderstand attribute
| to make sure your "processing instructions" are not silently ignored.
|
| <s:Envelope>
| <s:Header>
| <myns:ignoreHeader
| role="intermed1"
| myns:QName="n1:yourHeader1"
myns:QName? Ugh. Why not just have an attribute for the URI and
another attribute for the local-name. (I fear I'm getting deeper into
SOAP than I really want to.)
Be seeing you,
norm
- --
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM | So, are you working on finding that bug now,
XML Standards Architect | or are you leaving it until later? Yes.
Web Tech. and Standards |
Sun Microsystems, Inc. |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.7 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iD8DBQE+Lw/xOyltUcwYWjsRAu2tAJ4kbsRG3xV/eLhkB+Ab0kw1y7fJbgCfa/PG
gLs8DkNeDJxwdFGvUvbZXB4=
=rgoJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wednesday, 22 January 2003 16:41:15 UTC