- From: Mark Jones <jones@research.att.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 17:58:33 -0400 (EDT)
- To: jones@research.att.com, marting@develop.com, jacek@idoox.com, moreau@crf.canon.fr
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org, ruellan@crf.canon.fr
Gudge, Your (first) proposal: <env:Envelope xmlns:env='http://www.w3.org/2001/06/soap-envelope' > <env:StuffYouMUstUnderstand> <!-- Stuff the end point must understand goes here --> </env:StuffYouMustUnderstand> <!-- streaming point is now here --> <env:Stuff> <!-- Stuff you don't have to understand (including stuff referenced from above) goes here --> </env:Stuff> </env:Envelope> was pretty much exactly what I had in mind: > We seem to flirt from time-to-time with eliminating the > header/body/trailer distinction. Another possibility is to make a > break with SOAP 1.1 syntax and simply have a set of blocks in which we > syntactically distinguish a streaming point if so desired. This point > is the point after which we guarantee not to place/find any additional > mU=1 blocks. So the question is -- what are the pros and cons of going this route? What does it break? What are the advantages (apart from unification of header/body/trailer and establishing a streaming point)? --mark
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2001 17:58:37 UTC