- From: Dave Winer <dave@userland.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 07:33:26 -0700
- To: "Keith Moore" <moore@cs.utk.edu>, "Dick Brooks" <dick@8760.com>
- Cc: <moore@cs.utk.edu>, "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@akamai.com>, <ietf@ietf.org>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Does the HTTP spec allow applications to add headers? If so, what the heck is the argument about? BTW, I thought SOAPAction was dorky when I first heard the idea. But it's there. There's deployment based on SOAPAction. Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Moore" <moore@cs.utk.edu> To: "Dick Brooks" <dick@8760.com> Cc: <moore@cs.utk.edu>; "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>; "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@akamai.com>; <ietf@ietf.org>; <xml-dist-app@w3.org> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 6:25 AM Subject: Re: SOAP/XML Protocol and filtering, etc. > > >far better for the SOAP-specific message broker to have intimate knowledge > > >of the SOAP-specific payload, than to have the SOAP-specific message broker > > >to have intimate knowledge of the HTTP-specific request header. > > > > I never said a message broker was SOAP specific. > > a message broker that looks at a SOAPAction header isn't SOAP specific? > > > There are message brokers running on HTTP servers that can dispatch > > processing for EDIINT AS2, GISB EDM, AIAG E-5, ebXML, SOAP and other types. > > what you are saying is that there are people out there who do not understand > the value of clean separation of function between layers. how is that a > justification for a standards-setting organization to propagate that > misunderstanding? > > Keith >
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2001 10:34:28 UTC