Re: Issue 25 Proposal

The problem is that sometimes (most times?) it isn't
this cut-and-dried that you can separate things this 
cleanly.

Cheers,

Chris

Mark Jones wrote:
> 
> 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