- From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
- Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 14:52:41 +0100
- To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: "'Christopher Ferris'" <chris.ferris@sun.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Williams, Stuart wrote: > > I have a number of concerns with the direction that this is now going. > > 1) The original motivation for the discussion, as I recall, was directed at > the resolution of Issue #61 [1]. I think what is proposed in [2] is > no-longer focussed on that, indeed as far as I can tell it defines a binding > that is (possibly deliberately) incapable of supporting *any* attachment > scheme. > +1, mandating use of application/soap+xml as the only supported encoding prevents use of, e.g SOAP+attachements, with this binding. I brought this up on the latest TBTF call. I would prefer a more flexible approach where other content types may also be used with the content negotiation feature being used to reach agreement on a mutually supported encoding. Pretty much every SOAP implementation supports attachments. If we go with the proposed formulation then an implementation that supports attachements cannot be said to conform to our binding, only perhaps to interoperate with it. Regards, Marc. -- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com> XML Technology Centre, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2002 09:10:03 UTC