- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 11:51:46 -0500 (EST)
- To: henrikn@microsoft.com (Henrik Frystyk Nielsen)
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3c.org (XML dist app)
Hey Henrik, > >There's other issues that we'd have to resolve before removing > >SOAPAction. For example, do we want to also allow > >application/xml (as defined in RFC 3023) to be used? I think > >we do, so some thought has to go into that. > > Good question - attributes can or course not be carried over. Hmm, do we > want to go there? Right, I don't think we want to update RFC 3023 yet, so we'd need another means of communicating this information; maybe SOAPAction. 8-) But that's still not the end of it, since we have to specify how messages described with the permutations of [unadorned media type, adorned media type, SOAPAction] should behave. However, I don't see any problem with deferring that work until later, since I'm sure application/soap+xml will suffice for most people. What I'm still thinking about, is what we might need to say now to permit application/xml later. I'd be interested in hearing your (or anybody else's thoughts on this). MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Monday, 3 December 2001 11:53:07 UTC