- From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:44:14 +0100
- To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Hi Mark, > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org] > Sent: 18 April 2002 02:31 > To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen > Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org > Subject: Re: Proposal for dealing with issue 200: SOAPAction > header vs. > action parameter > <snip/> > > 2) This is the trickiest part - one of the important reasons for having > > a known content type is to indicate that *this* is a SOAP message. If > > two parties are not using a known content type then that information > > clearly is not there anymore. I can think of two ways to go: > > > > 2.A) We leave it entirely up to the media type being used to indicate in > > some manner that this is a SOAP message. > > > > 2.B) We maintain the SOAPAction in some manner (for example in an > > appendix) that allows is to be used with content types other than > > "application/soap+xml" indicating that this is a SOAP message. > > Right. > > I don't believe that we can rule out 2A in the future, so I think the > answer is both. For now, IMO that means taking action on 2B to soften > up the wording about recommending that SOAPAction not be required. The presense of a SOAPAction header to signify that whatever 'tarball' there might be in the HTTP message body contains a SOAP message seems like a good idea. It would provide a means to do this independent of content-type, which also seems like a good idea, particularly in the light of the use of the Content-Type: Multipart/Related by SOAP with Attachments. I don't think that we can just go adding parameters like "action" that pre-existing media-types. I don't think that the presense of SOAPAction has ever be controvertial as a means to indicate that an HTTP body contains a SOAP message, however it happens to be wrapped. The piece that is/was controvertial, was the significance of the action value carried in the SOAPAction header. IIRC the intent of the resolution [1] was to ensure that the value carried in SOAPAction header be regarded as a 'hint' and that correct operation at a recipient *not* be dependent on SA being set correctly - but it could be used to optimise message processing. I think a proposal for a header whose sole purpose is to signify the presense of a SOAP message could be successful. I think that a proposal that seeks to attribute more significance to the action value than its current significance as a hint will be problematic in the light of [1]. Personnally, I think that the SOAPAction header as currently specified does what it does on a way that is independent of the media-type. If I were going to choose one mechanism I'd stick with the SOAPAction header that we currently have. However, I may be that I have not understood the merits of moving it being a parameter of the media-type - that seems to restrict the leverage of existing media types. I can see the worms beginning to wriggle as I look inside the can :-) <snip/> > MB > -- > Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. > Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com > http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com Regards Stuart [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Sep/0091.html
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 05:45:04 UTC