- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 13:29:08 +0100
- To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Noah, [Sorry to appear to be changing my tune...] I'm thinking some more about the SOAP relay-header problem you raised. I don't know if this is a reasonable use-case, but it might illustrate a possible difficulty: Contemplating an information distribution network, a SOAP sender may wish to include information to all transcoding proxies on the message path, maybe communicating a preference for size or fidelity when applying format conversions. It seems to me that the SOAP role identifier would be the natural place to target a header to any "transcodingProxies". The proposed use of the "relay" role to describe the "drop or forward" behaviour for unrecognized headers would seem to preempt this use of the role identifier. I find myself leaning more towards preference of the 'relayIfNotProcessed' option (which doesn't seem like such a big addition to me): <soap:Header> <nrm:myHeader role="..any role you like..." mustUnderstand="false" relayIfNotProcessed="true"> ... </nrm:myHeader> </soap:Header> #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2002 08:36:10 UTC