- From: Herve Ruellan <herve.ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:56:15 +0200
- To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- CC: XMLP Dist App <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Hi Jacek Jacek Kopecky wrote: > Hi all, (repost from the WG list) > > I have a question about the MTOM document: does the HTTP implementation > of the abstract feature actually need to be a SOAP feature? Having the HTTP implementation be a SOAP feature may be handy the day we have several implementation of the abstract feature in the same binding to distinguish them. So I would say it is not needed but may be practical in some cases. > > I thought that we would somehow extend the HTTP binding so that it > implements section 2 using section 3. Section 4 doesn't do that > extension, it introduces a feature that still has to be incorporated > into the HTTP binding. So I suggest we rework section 4 to become the > glue between our HTTP binding and section 3. It would keep most of > section 4.3. The pending issue is whether we use the current HTTP binding or if we use an updated HTTP binding supporting an extension mechanism. When this issue will be solved, we will be able to rework section 4 to be glue between the choosen HTTP binding an the abstract feature implementation. Best regards, Hervé. > Best regards, > > Jacek Kopecky > > Senior Architect > Systinet Corporation > http://www.systinet.com/ > >
Received on Monday, 30 June 2003 10:56:37 UTC