- From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 12:29:04 -0000
- To: "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, dug@us.ibm.com, "'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app <xml-dist-app@w3c.org>
Hi Jean-Jacques, Completely missed the smiley... and even if I'd spotted it I'd probably have read it as pertaining just to the header/body question at the end, rather than the whole suggestion. Oh-well, better send out for a refresh to the sense-of-humor extension - I think they do a same-day delivery :-) Cheers, Stuart > -----Original Message----- > From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr] > Sent: 30 January 2002 09:57 > Subject: Re: Resolving the Ed Note in Part 1 section 5.1 (was New Issues) > > > 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 07:29:11 UTC