- From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
- Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 14:21:40 -0500
- To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org
because as an HTTP header, it doesn't translate across different communication protocols, whereas as a mime parameter on Content-Type, it could be used in any communication protocol capable of mime content. Cheers, Chris Jacek Kopecky wrote: > Chris, > why do you think "action" (as explained for SOAPAction - the > "intent" of the message) belongs to the MIME _type_ of the > message? > I think intent and type are two different, orthogonal things. > > Jacek Kopecky > > Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox) > http://www.systinet.com/ > > > > On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Christopher Ferris wrote: > > > I much prefer Henrik's suggested addition of an > > action parameter in the mime header over the SOAPAction > > HTTP header. I also think that charset is appropriate, > > but that's about all. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > Including "action"? I thought Henrik described its value well. I had > > > > suggested the same thing a few months earlier too. > > > > > > Excluding "action". This parameter (if it's what is represented > > > by the SOAPAction header now), IMO, does not belong to the MIME > > > _type_ of the message. But in any case the reasons for SOAPAction > > > have been considered good enough by the WG and I don't want to > > > object to this resolution now. > > > > > > Jacek Kopecky > > > > > > Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox) > > > http://www.systinet.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 3 January 2002 14:22:37 UTC