- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 15:52:33 +0100 (CET)
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- cc: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Henrik,
but the intent of one message can change from one server to
another, depending on what the server expects in the action
parameter (as it would have expected in the SOAPAction header),
how does this align with the notion of the type of a message?
If we specify what exactly must be the value of the action
parameter, it might belong to the type. If we don't and say that
it should be what the server wants it to be, then it's not part
of the type of messages.
I don't see the close relationship between MIME type and the
intent of a message, please try to explain what you think it is.
Best regards,
Jacek Kopecky
Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
http://www.systinet.com/
On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
>
> I think there is a close relationship between the intent of a message
> and the type (at least as described by the SOAPAction header field). By
> connecting the two, the relationship would be made explicit.
>
> Henrik
>
> > I don't think that this is enough of a reason for overloading
> >the type. And anyway, any MIME-based protocol can add a
> >SOAPAction MIME header so it _can_ translate across different
> >protocols. I doubt non-MIME-based protocols would use MIME type
> >in its full form, i.e. possibly with parameters. Is there such a
> >protocol?
>
Received on Friday, 4 January 2002 09:52:36 UTC