- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 09:01:35 -0700
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Rich Salz <rsalz@zolera.com>, Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com, Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Some implementations automagically generate and/or require it, IIRC. Stuart's question is framed very nicely; the optionality should be the service provider's/service consumer's, not the particular stack implementation's. Perhaps if we target (groan) the 'optional', this would be resolved to everyone's satisfaction? On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 08:53:54AM -0700, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: > > >Many implementations already generate SOAPAction, and some > >have specific requirements for it; if they read 'optional', > >they may just continue to generate it, leaving us in an interop mess. > > If think the optional lies in whether a service provider wants to use it > or not. If it is "exported" as part of that web service then I think the > client is expected to use it. If not then clearly the client doesn't > have to. > > Given that the value is not computed and the client has to be told when > to use it by the service provider, I am not sure I can see what > interoperability problems it causes? > > Henrik -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2001 12:01:36 UTC