- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 17:33:22 -0700
- To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
- Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Mike Deem" <mikedeem@microsoft.com>
> it may be so, but in WS-Attachments there is an example of how >an attachment is referred to from SOAP Encoding data (example 2), >and it uses the way introduced by SOAP With Attachments. > If this is really just a simple example that doesn't want to >guide anyone on how attachments are referred to from SOAP >Encoding, then I believe it should be changed to an example that >really just shows a piece of XML that is not SOAP Encoding and >that references the attachment, something like: > > <ns:claim> > <ns:photo attachment="uuid:..."/> > </ns:claim> Good idea. > My concern is that if you show the linking mechanism introduced >by SwA, you should either define the mechanism (presumably for >SOAP 1.2, too) or link to SwA. > My preference would be that WS-Attachments defines how >attachments are referred to from SOAP Encoding (both 1.1 and 1.2) >data. Well, the mechanism is not really defined by SwA but in this example by SOAP 1.1 encoding. I agree that it is not the best example to use. Henrik
Received on Wednesday, 17 July 2002 20:33:53 UTC