Closing issue 390

Hugo,

You raised issue 390 [0] on behalf of WSA WG.

The first part of the issue is a general request to explain why and
when using the attachments (rather than links to resources):
	" We recommend the XML Protocol Working Group
 	to document the motivations for using the SOAP Attachment Feature,
 	for example with a set of usage scenarios."
 
In AF's doc introduction [1], the 3 bullets give use cases of attachments
from a SOAP point of view. An attachment is a particular part of the
SOAP message. We don't see any further need to give use cases of attachment
along with some particular implementations and particular bindings.
The attachment feature was designed initially to complete the SOAP 
specification. 
 
The second part of the issue asks clarifications about how resources
on the web (referenced by a URI) are added as a part (how a change of
reference is handled):
	" For example, a
     reference in a SOAP element might be <http://example.com/Sound.wav>.
     My SOAP application now uses some SOAP attachment feature, perhaps  
     MIME. The representation is now identified by
     <cid:someidentifierforSoundwav>. "

We claim that the semantics is not the same when you refer to an external
URI than when you attach a particular representation of that resource (a
snapshot). We allow both external and internal reference to           
a resource, which are different usages, but we do not preclude any.
 
Wrt referencing attachment in general, it is a binding problem and not
an attachment feature issue. It is possible to refer either to external 
URIs, either to parts of the secondary bag. The way the URI is resolved
is certainly not in scope of the Attachment feature.


Please let us know asap if this is not satisfactory. 


[0] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x390
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-af-20020814/#intro
 

-- 
Carine Bournez -+- W3C / INRIA Sophia-Antipolis

Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2002 11:23:00 UTC