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

RE: Proofread of MTOM draft

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 08:35:22 -0700
Message-ID: <DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B633802292A68@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
> Sent: 19 May 2004 05:50
> To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Proofread of MTOM draft
> 
> 
> I've just done a quick skim of MTOM, following up on XOP 
> notes of last 
> night.  I did not get to the media-type registration part.  
> Also:  I have 
> >not< had time to proofread the following.  My meeting is 
> about to start, 
> and I want to get this sent out in time for review.   
> Apologies for any 
> errors.
> 
> Most Important
> --------------
> 
> * Section 3.2:  "When sending a SOAP message using the MIME 
> Multipart/Related Serialization, the SOAP message Data Model 
> is serialized 
> as specified in [XOP] 4.1 Creating XOP packages. "  -> "When 
> sending a 
> SOAP message using the MIME Multipart/Related Serialization, the SOAP 
> >envelope Infoset< is serialized as specified in [XOP] 4.1 
> Creating XOP 
> packages. "

+1 

> 
> * Section 4.3.1:  "Generate a binding-dependent SOAP fault"  
> This seems to 
> violate the rule in the SOAP binding framework that a SOAP 
> binding must be 
> capable of sending any legal SOAP envelope infoset.  The bullet as 
> supplied seems to preclude, for example, sending a SOAP message that 
> contains an error report showing a fragment with a 
> xop:Include in it.  I 
> would prefer to leave out this bullet, but I do realize that 
> in so doing 
> we make implementations a bit more complicated, and to handle a quite 
> obscure case.  Still, I don't like the precedent that a SOAP 
> binding can 
> punt on sending any SOAP envelopes that prove inconvenient.  Maybe we 
> debated this earlier and I forgot?
> 

I don't remember the discussion either, but I'm tempted to leave this
one as is for LC.

Gudge
Received on Wednesday, 19 May 2004 11:35:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:18 GMT