Anish Karamarkar writes: >> If we separate out section 3.2 as a part of >> the separate document which is not SOAP >> specific, isn't that the same as XInclude >> with parse="binary"? I don't think so. My impression is that an XInclude can reference any web resource, which is a quite weak contract packaging wise. MTOM, as I understand it, says: xbinc:Include must be replaced with the resource representation >>in the multipart MIME stream in which the reference occurs<<. In other words, I see the MTOM serialization (though not necessarily all embodiments of the abstract MTOM feature) as specifically providing for data packaged together in a single stream. Indeed, I would argue that if we used generalized include in the MTOM serialization, it should be limited to representations carried in that serialization. It is completely unacceptable to have to open a web connection to get these message parts. Perhaps this is a reason not to use generalized XInclude in MTOM? In other words, if you really mean Web-scale XInclude, with the possible need to open external connections, use generalized XInclude (if it gets to Rec.) For local-only include use xbinc:Include? I can see this either way, but I think its essential that we call out separately the case where messages are self-contained. Thanks! Noah ------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------Received on Monday, 20 October 2003 15:12:34 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:15 GMT