- From: Mark Jones <jones@research.att.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 17:58:33 -0400 (EDT)
- 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 UTC