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: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 12:29:04 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F19290E@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, dug@us.ibm.com, "'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app <xml-dist-app@w3c.org>
Hi Jean-Jacques,

Completely missed the smiley... and even if I'd spotted it I'd probably have
read it as pertaining just to the header/body question at the end, rather
than the whole suggestion.

Oh-well, better send out for a refresh to the sense-of-humor extension -  I
think they do a same-day delivery :-)

Cheers,

Stuart

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr]
> Sent: 30 January 2002 09:57
> Subject: Re: Resolving the Ed Note in Part 1 section 5.1 (was New Issues)
> 
> 
> 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 07:29:11 GMT

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