W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > June 2001

Re: Issue 25 Proposal

From: Mark Jones <jones@research.att.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 17:58:33 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200106142158.RAA00634@glad.research.att.com>
To: jones@research.att.com, marting@develop.com, jacek@idoox.com, moreau@crf.canon.fr
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org, ruellan@crf.canon.fr

Gudge,

Your (first) proposal:
        <env:Envelope xmlns:env='http://www.w3.org/2001/06/soap-envelope' >
          <env:StuffYouMUstUnderstand>
            <!-- Stuff the end point must understand goes here -->
          </env:StuffYouMustUnderstand>
          <!-- streaming point is now here -->
          <env:Stuff>
            <!-- Stuff you don't have to understand (including stuff referenced from
        above) goes here -->
          </env:Stuff>
        </env:Envelope>

was pretty much exactly what I had in mind:

        > We seem to flirt from time-to-time with eliminating the
        > header/body/trailer distinction.  Another possibility is to make a
        > break with SOAP 1.1 syntax and simply have a set of blocks in which we
        > syntactically distinguish a streaming point if so desired.  This point
        > is the point after which we guarantee not to place/find any additional
        > mU=1 blocks.


So the question is -- what are the pros and cons of going this route?

  What does it break?

  What are the advantages (apart from unification of header/body/trailer
  and establishing a streaming point)?

--mark
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2001 17:58:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:01 GMT