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

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                                                    
                      11/11/2002 02:23                                                                                                              

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

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.

Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2002 17:47:31 UTC

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