RE: LocationTemplate-1G totally hosed ;-)

> > I forgot about the SOAP Response MEP - must be some jetlag.  Nothing
> with an
> > application/soap+xml media type will add uncited parameters, but I guess
> > that doesn't include the SOAP Response MEP which doesn't have a media
> type
> > on the request.  But in that case something is still broken:  {http
> ignore
> > uncited} isn't among the parameters listed as supported by the SOAP
> binding.
> > It doesn't appear in the interchange format, so it shouldn't really have
> > been available for you to use to pass that testcase!
> >
> I am still unsure of the relationship between application/soap+xml and
> uncited parameters.
> Are you referring to section 6.7/table 6-5?
> Anyway, in the SOAP-Response case, the media-type may be omitted within
> the request, but it may also be added.
> It may be especially useful if soap action has been specified and will
> help the server.
> Are you suggesting that depending on this implementation choice,
> parameters should or should not be added to the request URL?

I tried to clarify this at [1].  The media type of a soap-response MEP
request doesn't appear to affect the generation of query parameters.

I don't think either the WSDL Adjuncts spec nor the SOAP Adjuncts spec says
anything explicit about which media type to use for a soap-response MEP, so
you may be right that one could use application/soap+xml even though the
body is empty.

Is there an implication that when there is a {soap action} that
application/soap+xml is used?

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2007Jan/0141.html