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

RE: FW: Two new Internet drafts: DIME and WS-Attachments

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 17:33:22 -0700
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D08514E60@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Mike Deem" <mikedeem@microsoft.com>


> it may be so, but in WS-Attachments there is an example of how 
>an attachment is referred to from SOAP Encoding data (example 2), 
>and it uses the way introduced by SOAP With Attachments.
> If this is really just a simple example that doesn't want to 
>guide anyone on how attachments are referred to from SOAP 
>Encoding, then I believe it should be changed to an example that 
>really just shows a piece of XML that is not SOAP Encoding and 
>that references the attachment, something like:
>
> <ns:claim>
>   <ns:photo attachment="uuid:..."/>
> </ns:claim>

Good idea.

> My concern is that if you show the linking mechanism introduced
>by SwA, you should either define the mechanism (presumably for
>SOAP 1.2, too) or link to SwA.
> My preference would be that WS-Attachments defines how 
>attachments are referred to from SOAP Encoding (both 1.1 and 1.2) 
>data.

Well, the mechanism is not really defined by SwA but in this example by
SOAP 1.1 encoding. I agree that it is not the best example to use.

Henrik
Received on Wednesday, 17 July 2002 20:33:53 GMT

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