W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2004

Re: Start parameter in MIFFY/MTOM

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:59:19 -0500
To: "Herve Ruellan" <herve.ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>, XMLP Dist App <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF66B6977A.C979D715-ON85256E1B.0077CC21@lotus.com>

To clarify, I meant that in HTTP it should be a MUST if the SOAP envelope 
is not the first part.  That's also consistent, BTW, with the WS-I 
attachment profile draft [1] (section 3.1.8). 

[1] http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/Basic/2003-08/AttachmentsProfile-1.0.htm

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








Noah Mendelsohn
01/14/04 10:24 AM


        To:     Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
        cc:     "Herve Ruellan" <herve.ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, XMLP Dist App 
<xml-dist-app@w3.org>
        Subject:        Re: Start parameter in MIFFY/MTOM


Should the HTTP binding make that a MUST to indicate the root part for 
SOAP/MTOM over HTTP?   Not sure, just asking.

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








Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
01/14/04 09:33 AM

 
        To:     "Herve Ruellan" <herve.ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
        cc:     XMLP Dist App <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, (bcc: Noah 
Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        Re: Start parameter in MIFFY/MTOM



Perhaps something like;

"""Note that MIFFY Packages using Multipart/Related may use any of the 
facilities therein, including the start parameter to indicate the root 
part."""



On Jan 14, 2004, at 7:03 AM, Herve Ruellan wrote:

> I would like to make sure that all MIFFY or MTOM implementations 
> supporting Multipart/Related packages have to support the "Start" 
> parameter.
> From reading between the lines of the last MIFFY spec [1], I think 
> this is the case, but I would prefer if it was explicitely said in 
> section 2.1.
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2004 17:00:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 22:28:13 UTC