- From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 14:46:18 -0400
- To: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Rich, I won't presume to answer the first part, however per section 5.1 [1], a SOAP Envelope must have a soap:Body element information item, although that EII may be empty. Hence, > <S:Envelope> > <S:Header><tns:foo/></S:Header> > </S:Envelope> > and > <S:Envelope> > </S:Envelope> are both invalid SOAP messages. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/#soapenv Cheers, Christopher Ferris Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com phone: +1 508 234 3624 xml-dist-app-request@w3.org wrote on 05/15/2003 02:16:20 PM: > > Are the following messages semantically equivalent (namespace > declarations omitted for brevity)? > <S:Envelope> > <S:Header></S:Header> > <S:Body><tns:foo/></S:Body> > </S:Envelope> > and > <S:Envelope> > <S:Body><tns:foo/></S:Body> > </S:Envelope> > > In other words, if there are no headers, are message processors allowed > to insert/delete an empty Header element? I believe the answer is yes, > as I can't find text that says otherwise. > > And what if there are no EII's for the Body, can that be omitted? > <S:Envelope> > <S:Header><tns:foo/></S:Header> > </S:Envelope> > and > <S:Envelope> > </S:Envelope> > > This has implications for message normalization and the ability to sign > SOAP messages. > /r$ > -- > Rich Salz, Chief Security Architect > DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com > XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html >
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2003 14:47:45 UTC