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

Re: Comments on SOAP 1.2 Attachment Feature

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 17:46:58 -0500
To: "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF13AFF146.4FE62AA1-ON85256C71.007CD5A3@lotus.com>






Amelia Lewis proposes:

>> If it has zero secondary parts, it isn't a compound message.

Literally true, but in the end I don't agree with your comment.  What's
really meant is "potentially compound message".  In other words, we are
talking about a framework which provides the infrastructure for supporting
secondary parts.  Is a filesystem still a filesystem if you delete all the
files from it?  In many cases, those who use embodiments of SOAP
Attachments will do so uniformly whether or not there is in fact a
secondary part. For example, it's reasonable to use the DIME or
SOAP+Attachments embodiments, whether or not there is a secondary part.
So, I would recommend leaving the terminology as is.  Thank you.

BTW:  since the comments list is not for discussion, I'm replying on
distApp.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------




                                                                                                                                                    
                      "Amelia A. Lewis"                                                                                                             
                      <alewis@tibco.com        To:       xmlp-comments@w3.org                                                                       
                      >                        cc:       (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)                                                       
                      Sent by:                 Subject:  Comments on SOAP 1.2 Attachment Feature                                                    
                      xmlp-comments-req                                                                                                             
                      uest@w3.org                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                    
                      11/11/2002 02:23                                                                                                              
                      PM                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                    





I realize that this is after last call, but I want to submit this anyway.

Throughout the document, the definition is that a compound message consists
of a primary SOAP message part and zero or more secondary parts.

This is silly.  If it has zero secondary parts, it isn't a compound
message.

Throughout, "zero or more secondary parts" should read "one or more
secondary parts."  Unless the attachment feature is redefining the meaning
of SOAP without attachments.

Amy!
--
Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2002 17:47:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:11 GMT