- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 10:57:08 +0100
- To: "Williams Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, dug@us.ibm.com, "'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app <xml-dist-app@w3c.org>
Hmmm... I think you've been reading this a little too seriously; notice the ":)" at the end; sorry if this was not explicit enough. Jean-Jacques. "Williams, Stuart" wrote: > Hmmm.... nesting envelopes feels like it might be fraught with some of the > difficulties of nesting XML - document scoped artifacts, id collisions, > charset issues... > > Not sure I really want to go there. > > Stuart > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr] > > Sent: 29 January 2002 13:20 > > To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com > > Cc: dug@us.ibm.com; 'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'; skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com; > > xml-dist-app > > Subject: Re: Resolving the Ed Note in Part 1 section 5.1 (was New > > Issues) > > > > > > Presumably, one could use nested SOAP envelopes to get around > > the problem of > > not being able to apply the SOAP extensibility framework. In > > this model, the > > initial envelope would be wrapped into a second envelope that would be > > delivered to the next hop. The second envelope would contain > > binding specific > > information, represented as headers (bodies?). :) > > > > Jean-Jacques. > > > > noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote: > > > > > You raise a good point. In this proposal, the binding is > > indeed viewed as > > > separate in the sense that the processing rules of chapter > > 2 apply >after< > > > a binding has done the job of receiving an infoset, and at > > an intermediary > > > >before< the relayed infoset is sent by the binding. So, > > in that sense > > > separate. > > > > > > The proposal I made is intended as a compromise. By imposing the > > > separation, we get out of the business of figuring out how > > to integrate > > > the two. For example, we don't have to say how a binding > > can munge with > > > the envelope when in fact the processing rules say that > > >all< mU checking > > > must be done before any processing is done. What we lose > > is the ability > > > to apply the soap extensibility and processing model to bindings. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 > > > IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 > > > One Rogers Street > > > Cambridge, MA 02142 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2002 04:59:52 UTC