- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Date: 18 Nov 2002 03:55:50 -0500
- To: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Cc: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>, Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>, XMLP Public <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, WSD Public <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Jean-Jacques,
it may need pointing out that because a module implements one or more
features, the header author must provide one or more features in
addition to the module, if we decide that headers cannot be defined
outside of modules.
It seems to me that for the sake of simplicity we should allow headers
that are not defined by any module. It would mean that in WSDL we keep
soap:header element.
Best regards,
Jacek Kopecky
Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
http://www.systinet.com/
On Thu, 2002-11-14 at 09:56, Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:
> No, it's not the intent of the XMLP WG, SOAP modules are
> identified by URIs, users are in control, not any one else. The
> question is, when you define your own header, should you also
> define the corresponding module (knowing you've done half the job
> when you've created the header in the first place) and associated
> URI?
>
> Jean-Jacques.
>
> Rich Salz wrote:
> >>Interesting question. I think its probably clear that there's nothing
> >>we can do to prevent a SOAP node from receiving a message containing an
> >>unknown header block (irrespective of whether a module specification
> >>for the header block exists or not).
> >
> >
> > Of COURSE this is going to happen. It's going to happen most of the time.
> > That's the whole purpose of distributed names (URI's) and mustUnderstand,
> > isn't it? It's not really the intent of this WG to set up IANA-style
> > registrations for SOAP modules, is it?
Received on Monday, 18 November 2002 03:56:36 UTC