- From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 00:26:09 -0700
- To: "Rich Salz" <rsalz@datapower.com>
- Cc: "Christopher B Ferris" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
The intent was that the Infoset properties be preserved unmodified except for the exclusions listed. That said, one COULD interpret Rule #1 as saying that if you have a message: <soap:Envelope> <soap:Body> . . . </soap:Body> </soap:Envelope> then intermediaries CANNOT add any headers ( because no rule in[1] allows insertion of <soap:Header> ). This is definitely undesirable. I hesitate to say this, but I think this probably needs to be raised as a PR issue. Gudge [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/#soapinterminfoset > -----Original Message----- > From: Rich Salz [mailto:rsalz@datapower.com] > Sent: 16 May 2003 02:51 > To: Martin Gudgin > Cc: Christopher B Ferris; xml-dist-app@w3.org > Subject: RE: Content-free Header and Body elements > > > OK, this is covered in[1] > > > > And no, you can't remove an empty Header element. My take > is so that > > you can sign it and say 'It is empty, there were no headers > sent with > > this message' > > Does Rule #1 prevent an intermediary from adding <S:Header/> > if none is present? That would be pinning an awful lot on > the meaning of "preserved"; perhaps "preserved unmodified" > was what was really meant? > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/#soapinterminfoset > > /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 Friday, 16 May 2003 03:26:25 UTC