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

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

From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 15:58:08 -0500
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF6A4CAE41.F2D69F7E-ON85256B10.0065FD64@raleigh.ibm.com >
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?

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.

Received on Monday, 26 November 2001 15:58:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:16 UTC