- From: Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 14:01:44 -0700
- To: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- CC: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Jean-Jacques , No. That issue talking about general inconsistencies in binding between soap:header and soap:body bindings.. I think the optionality of parts in a message needs to be captured at the abstract level (and at the binding level). Regards, Prasad Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote: > Prasad, isn't this covered by issue 51 [1] already? > > Jean-Jacques. > > [1] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.html > > Prasad Yendluri wrote: > > > After thinking a little more, it seems to me this would be a useful > > addition. > > > > Usecase: A response message could optionally return one or more > > "attachments". > > > > We do have an example of having attachments in the MIME binding section > > of the specification (Section 5.11 Example 7) but, there is no way to > > specify those as optional with variable cardinality (minoccurs, > > maxoccurs). The example claims these are optional in the description > > part but, neither the "message" definitions (A 4.1 WSDL schema) nor the > > MIME bindings ( 4.4 MIME binding Schema) permit this. > > > > Regards, Prasad
Received on Friday, 26 April 2002 16:59:19 UTC