- From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 13:05:02 -0000
- To: "'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: XML dist app <xml-dist-app@w3c.org>
Hi Henrik, This looks good to me as long as the intention is that OPTIONAL means optional for the sender of a message (basically same debate that we had over making SOAPAction OPTIONAL). This is consistent with being a "hint", ie. correct operation would still occur in the absense of such an OPTIONAL hint, however use of the (correct) hint may lead to more efficient processing of a message by a recipient. [Aside: Consideration of 'bogus' hints takes us to the place you noted you didn't want to go in your final paragraph.] Stuart > -----Original Message----- > From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen [mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com] > Sent: 02 December 2001 17:24 > To: Mark Baker > Cc: XML dist app > Subject: Suggestion on application/soap{+xml} media type attribute > > > > While changing the MIME media type for SOAP messages to either > "application/soap+xml" or "application/soap", here is something that we > might consider in moving forward regardless of which direction we take. > > As discussed at length on various mailing lists, the main purpose of the > SOAPAction header field is to indicate the *type* of the SOAP message > using a URI rather than a centrally registered mechanism such as a media > type. This was expressed in a fluffy way as "intent". > > The reason for this is to enable MIME/RFC 822-based applications to be > able to get an OPTIONAL hint about what the SOAP message contains > without having to parse the SOAP message. As hints go, this > is useful in the same way the MIME content type is useful. > > The reason for introducing SOAPAction header field was to avoid many of > the apparent problems in mixing media type formats with URIs in general. > One reason for this was that the media type for XML was "text/xml" with > only one attribute (charset). > > As we are now defining a new media type, we no longer have this > constraint. Therefore, I suggest we consider defining an OPTIONAL media > type attribute as part of our new media type that can contain this > information, something like this: > > application/soap+xml; action="http://www.example.org/foo" > > If we go this way we can in fact GET RID OF SOAPAction HTTP header field > altogether and make the link between the media type explicit hence > avoiding some of the confusion. > > Note that it is NOT the purpose of this mail to bring up the discussion > of whether the information can be trusted, used for dispatch, carried in > the SOAP message itself, or anything else - it is STRICTLY a suggestion > for defining a SOAP media type attribute. The defining text will of > course take into account security concerns as any media type > has to do. > > Comments? > > Henrik Frystyk Nielsen > mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com >
Received on Monday, 3 December 2001 08:05:18 UTC