W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2002

Re: Resolving the Ed Note in Part 1 section 5.1 (was New Issues)

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 10:57:08 +0100
Message-ID: <3C57C374.DBA54812@crf.canon.fr>
To: "Williams Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, dug@us.ibm.com, "'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app <xml-dist-app@w3c.org>
Hmmm... I think you've been reading this a little too seriously; notice the
":)" at the end; sorry if this was not explicit enough.

Jean-Jacques.

"Williams, Stuart" wrote:

> Hmmm.... nesting envelopes feels like it might be fraught with some of the
> difficulties of nesting XML - document scoped artifacts, id collisions,
> charset issues...
>
> Not sure I really want to go there.
>
> Stuart
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr]
> > Sent: 29 January 2002 13:20
> > To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
> > Cc: dug@us.ibm.com; 'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'; skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com;
> > xml-dist-app
> > Subject: Re: Resolving the Ed Note in Part 1 section 5.1 (was New
> > Issues)
> >
> >
> > Presumably, one could use nested SOAP envelopes to get around
> > the problem of
> > not being able to apply the SOAP extensibility framework. In
> > this model, the
> > initial envelope would be wrapped into a second envelope that would be
> > delivered to the next hop. The second envelope would contain
> > binding specific
> > information, represented as headers (bodies?). :)
> >
> > Jean-Jacques.
> >
> > noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> >
> > > You raise a good point.  In this proposal, the binding is
> > indeed viewed as
> > > separate in the sense that the processing rules of chapter
> > 2 apply >after<
> > > a binding has done the job of receiving an infoset, and at
> > an intermediary
> > > >before< the relayed infoset is sent by the binding.  So,
> > in that sense
> > > separate.
> > >
> > > The proposal I made is intended as a compromise.   By imposing the
> > > separation, we get out of the business of figuring out how
> > to integrate
> > > the two.  For example, we don't have to say how a binding
> > can munge with
> > > the envelope when in fact the processing rules say that
> > >all< mU checking
> > > must be done before any processing is done.  What we lose
> > is the ability
> > > to apply the soap extensibility and processing model to bindings.
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> > > IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> > > One Rogers Street
> > > Cambridge, MA 02142
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2002 04:59:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:06 GMT