- From: Simon Fell <soap@zaks.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 19:49:35 -0700
- To: xml-dist-app@w3.org, xmlp-comments@w3.org
If A & B are the only choices they i'd pick B, A is just an interop mess waiting to happen. However, SOAPAction in its current (i.e. SOAP 1.1) form, does serve a useful purpose, my only complaint is that the spec doesn't describe very well how to use it. Cheers Simon www.pocketsoap.com On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 16:41:11 +0200, in soap you wrote: >The W3C XML Protocol Working Group is attempting to address perceived and >reported problems with the "SOAPAction" mechanism in the HTTP binding ( see >SOAP 1.1 Section 6.1.1 [1] ). As part of this process, the WG wishes to >solicit >comments and guidance on two proposals it has generated, as below. > >Comments must go to xmlp-comments@w3.org by 2001-06-18, and should address >the proposals as they sit, and may optionally make general comments on >resolution of issues with SOAPAction. Those representing the positions of >particular groups or organizations are requested to clearly identify >themselves as such. The WG encourages additional discussion on the >xml-dist-app@w3.org >mailing list. > >Neither of the following options precludes equivalent functionality >elsewhere. > >Proposal A: >Use of SOAPAction is discouraged. SOAPAction is an optional part of XMLP, >supported but not required. Services MAY require SOAPAction and any >software wishing to access those services MUST be able to send it. > >Proposal B: >Use of SOAPAction is deprecated. Senders SHOULD NOT send SOAPAction. >Receivers MUST NOT accept or reject messages on the basis of the presence, >absence, or value of the SOAPAction header. > >Regards > >Martin Gudgin >For the W3C XML Protocol Working Group > >[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/#_Toc478383528 > > > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2001 22:50:35 UTC