W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > November 2003

RE: Proposed resolution for issue 440

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 10:03:37 -0800
Message-ID: <DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B63384EDB68@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Dale Moberg" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>, "Xml-Dist-App@W3. Org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Dale,

Sorry for the confusion. The intent was only to prohibit WITHIN the
multipart/related that contains the SOAP envelope. 

Phew! Glad we cleared that up...

Gudge

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dale Moberg [mailto:dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com] 
> Sent: 06 November 2003 17:50
> To: Martin Gudgin; Xml-Dist-App@W3. Org
> Subject: RE: Proposed resolution for issue 440
> 
> 
> Gudge says:
> 
> I'm afraid I don't understand any of the below. Why could 
> MTOM multipart/related packages not be transmitted over HTTP? Or SMTP?
> 
> All we are saying in PASWA/MTOM is that for the 
> multipart/related 'package' that contains the SOAP envelope 
> every other MIME part in that 'package' MUST be referenced by 
> EXACTLY one xbinc:Include in that envelope.
> 
> Dale replies:
> 
> OK, with that clarification (which I proposed in about the 
> 3rd paragraph), my concerns are lessened a bit. 
> 
> My point was that you cannot prohibit, for example, combining 
> that multipart/related MTOM bundle with something else in, 
> for example, a multipart/mixed or a different encompassing 
> multipart/related. If you did assert that those combinations 
> were prohibited, you would be violating what is officially 
> allowed for the MIME entity conveyed by SMTP or HTTP 
> transports. What is the difficulty in understanding that?
> 
> However, you are not prohibiting those combinations, as you 
> have now indicated. Thanks for your clarification. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2003 13:03:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:15 GMT