- From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 14:09:45 +0100
- To: "'Christopher Ferris'" <chris.ferris@sun.com>, "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
> > -1 > :-( demonstrating my lack of knowledge of MIME. That said, 2a means no generic determination of the soapyness of a message and... can we be confident that there is a 'handy' parameter around to use with all the existing media-types we might want to use - maybe multipart/* is all we'll ever want to leverage. Stuart > -----Original Message----- > From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@sun.com] > Sent: 18 April 2002 13:23 > To: Williams, Stuart > Cc: 'Mark Baker'; Henrik Frystyk Nielsen; xml-dist-app@w3.org > Subject: Re: Proposal for dealing with issue 200: SOAPAction > header vs. > ac tion parameter > > > -1 > > If you want to identify the "tarball" as a SOAP message > then this can be achieved using 2a at least for multipart/* > you would have the 'type' parameter which would have > 'application/soap+xml' as its value and that would identify > the message as a SOAP message. > > Cheers, > > Chris > > Williams, Stuart wrote: > >
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 09:10:38 UTC