Re: SOAPAction Proposal

Agreed - which is why I do think we should we say something
along the lines of what's I've proposed [1] - which is just
to say that it's optional (noting the change from soap 1.1)
-Dug

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Aug/0266.html



Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com on 09/04/2001 09:27:31 AM

To:   Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   mnot@mnot.net, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Subject:  Re: SOAPAction Proposal



Doug Davis writes:

>> We don't say "don't send a FOO header
>> unless there is a particular purpose
>> for it", so I'm not sure we should
>> for SOAPAction.

Well, I have no strong feeling as to the right solution for SOAPAction,
but I do think it's presence in the SOAP v1.1 spec gives it special status
in our work.  I think users will expect us to give some guidance regarding
its use, even if we do so only in a note.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2001 09:42:48 UTC