- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 12:49:29 +0200
- To: "Mark A. Jones" <jones@research.att.com>
- CC: Heather Kreger <kreger@us.ibm.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org, "Herve Ruellan" <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
+1 Jean-Jacques. Mark A. Jones wrote: > > Heather, Editors: > > Here is some additional text which would fit at the end of the > Packaging section in the wire stack text that you sent around: > > <maj> > For some applications, a purely XML-based representation of the > payload is awkward or inefficient. Examples of such cases include > payloads which contain binary data, recursively structured envelopes, > syntactically ill-formed XML fragments, etc. The most common > Packaging tactic in such cases is to introduce a multipart > representation which carries the SOAP envelope and its related data > (commonly referred to as "attachments"). "SOAP Messages with > Attachments", published as a W3C note > [http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP-attachments], is one proposed scheme; > "Direct Internet Message Encapsulation (DIME)" > [http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nielsen-dime-02.txt] is > another. An abstract model for SOAP 1.2 attachment features > [http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-af/] specifies how SOAP 1.2 bindings use > attachments and how those attachments are referenced from the envelope. > </maj> > > > --mark > > Mark A. Jones > AT&T > > > Heather Kreger wrote: > >> >> >> >> Here is the words I have for the wire stack. Same caveats as before. >> >> (See attached file: wire.ZIP) >> >> Heather Kreger >> Web Services Lead Architect >> STSM, SWG Emerging Technology >> kreger@us.ibm.com >> 919-543-3211 (t/l 441) cell:919-496-9572 >> > >
Received on Tuesday, 1 October 2002 06:49:26 UTC