Re: Proposed resolution of issue 101: relationship between headerand body blocks

Jean-Jacques wrote:
>So what seems to be on the plate right now is:
>* to reinforce the distinction between body and header (i101)
>* to disallow references from body to header (i170)
>* to allow only one body block per message
>This gives the picture of a very narrowedly corseted protocol,
>especially when contrasted with a generic XML document, where the
>flow of blocks is contrainted only by schemas at design time. Are we
>not being too restrictive with ourselves? Shouldn't we be more open
>in the core protocol, and defer specialisation to niches?
>Comments?
>Jean-Jacques.

I do not believe the current proposal (i101) would disallow
multiple children under *the* body block.  Just like soap 1.1
there is just one XML element named "body" but there could be
multiple children under it - each one could be a separate
and independent block (ie. boxcarring), but how that is processed
would be outside the scope of the soap 1.2 spec.

-Dug