> > (3) If you want to be WS-I compliant, then you /can/ send an empty
> > string and SRW servers will happily ignore it. But /requiring/ a
So the WS-I is just saying: You have to follow the protocol.
Uhhh...?
> Whether this is moronic or not isn't the point. The SOAP 1.1
> specification states "The SOAPAction HTTP request header field can be
> used to indicate the intent of the SOAP HTTP request...An HTTP client
> MUST use this header field when issuing a SOAP HTTP Request." So a
Indeed it does.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-SOAP-20000508/#_Toc478383528
You MUST waste bandwidth and server processing time by sending an
irrelevant header with a string that is going to be ignored.
Great stuff, W3C.
> client which doesn't include the SOAPAction header is not only violating
> WS-I, but also violating the SOAP 1.1 protocol itself. Hence the SOAP
> Stack running on the server is quite within its rights to return a SOAP
> Fault.
What do the toolkits do currently? Fault if not present? I don't think
this can be the case, or we wouldn't have had any interoperability until
now.
So we should just remain silent about SOAPAction.
Rob
--
,'/:. Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
,'-/::::. http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::. Nebmedes: http://nebmedes.o-r-g.org:8000/
____/:::::::::::::.
I L L U M I N A T I
