- From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 01:16:05 -0800
- To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Cc: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
My thinking is that esp. WRT attachments it would make for a very clean model if the 'secondaryPartBag' property in particular was exposed as a standard infoset property ( or set thereof ) even though the serialization would NOT necessarily be a standard XML 1.0 serialization. Gudge -----Original Message----- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr] Sent: Wed 20/11/2002 03:26 To: Martin Gudgin Cc: Sanjiva Weerawarana; WS-Desc WG (Public) Subject: Re: Proposal for the removal of the message construct from WSDL 1.2 To clarify... are you suggesting that SOAP features properties should be (mapped to?) standard Infoset properties? Jean-Jacques. Martin Gudgin wrote: > That makes sense, I wonder if one could go even further and access > attachments via standard Infoset properties. > > Gudge > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr] >>Sent: 19 November 2002 14:14 >>To: Martin Gudgin >>Cc: Sanjiva Weerawarana; WS-Desc WG (Public) >>Subject: Re: Proposal for the removal of the message >>construct from WSDL 1.2 >> >> >>+1, this is what I think the AF spec[1] was hinting at. SOAP >>applications would access attachment via the "secondaryPartBag" >>property and would not have to worry about serialization details. >> >>Jean-jacques. >> >>[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/07/SOAP-AF/aftf-soap-af.html >> >>Martin Gudgin wrote: >> >>>Personally I'd model attachments using an element decl and >> >>figure out >> >>>the actual serialization in the binding. >> >
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2002 04:16:38 UTC