- From: David Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 08:11:29 -0700
- To: xmlp-comments@w3.org
posting this to xmlp-comment to maintain a complete issue record, see the rest of this thread also ............................................ David C. Fallside, IBM Ext Ph: 530.477.7169 Int Ph: 544.9665 fallside@us.ibm.com ----- Forwarded by David Fallside/Santa Teresa/IBM on 05/20/2003 08:10 AM ----- |---------+----------------------------> | | "Martin Gudgin" | | | <mgudgin@microsof| | | t.com> | | | Sent by: | | | xml-dist-app-requ| | | est@w3.org | | | | | | | | | 05/16/2003 12:26 | | | AM | |---------+----------------------------> >-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: "Rich Salz" <rsalz@datapower.com> | | cc: Christopher B Ferris/Waltham/IBM@IBMUS, <xml-dist-app@w3.org> | | Subject: RE: Content-free Header and Body elements | >-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| 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 Tuesday, 20 May 2003 11:16:51 UTC