- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 17:46:58 -0500
- To: "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Amelia Lewis proposes:
>> If it has zero secondary parts, it isn't a compound message.
Literally true, but in the end I don't agree with your comment. What's
really meant is "potentially compound message". In other words, we are
talking about a framework which provides the infrastructure for supporting
secondary parts. Is a filesystem still a filesystem if you delete all the
files from it? In many cases, those who use embodiments of SOAP
Attachments will do so uniformly whether or not there is in fact a
secondary part. For example, it's reasonable to use the DIME or
SOAP+Attachments embodiments, whether or not there is a secondary part.
So, I would recommend leaving the terminology as is. Thank you.
BTW: since the comments list is not for discussion, I'm replying on
distApp.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Amelia A. Lewis"
<alewis@tibco.com To: xmlp-comments@w3.org
> cc: (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
Sent by: Subject: Comments on SOAP 1.2 Attachment Feature
xmlp-comments-req
uest@w3.org
11/11/2002 02:23
PM
I realize that this is after last call, but I want to submit this anyway.
Throughout the document, the definition is that a compound message consists
of a primary SOAP message part and zero or more secondary parts.
This is silly. If it has zero secondary parts, it isn't a compound
message.
Throughout, "zero or more secondary parts" should read "one or more
secondary parts." Unless the attachment feature is redefining the meaning
of SOAP without attachments.
Amy!
--
Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2002 17:47:31 UTC