Re: Comments on SOAP 1.2 Attachment Feature

+1

Although, this does I think point out a peculiarity (IMO) in the current
spec:

        "Each part is identified by a URI that can be used to reference it 
from other parts. The URI identifying 
        a part can be of any URI scheme; the particular assignment of URIs 
to parts in the message MUST be 
        specified by each SOAP binding implementing this feature. It is 
RECOMMENDED that only IANA 
        registered URI schemes be used."

I suppose that this could be interpreted in a couple of ways:
        1) that the binding layer assigns the URIs for its purpose that 
can be mapped to the URIs that identify the
        parts in the compound SOAP structure such that the infoset 
representing the compound SOAP
        structure can be faithfully transferred from sending node to 
receiving node.
        2) that the application assigns the URIs based on some knowledge 
of the scheme(s) supported
        by the binding.

My preference would be for 1. As such, it seems to me that this should be 
clearly called out.
e.g.
        Each part is identified by a URI that can be used to reference it 
from other parts. The 
        URI identifying a part can be of any URI scheme. Each SOAP binding 
implementing this feature
        MUST provide the means by which the URI identifying a given part 
of a compound SOAP structure
        can be transferred from sending to receiving node such that the 
URI identifying a part at the
        sending node is identical to the URI identifying the part at the 
receiving node. It is RECOMMENDED
        that only IANA registered URI schemes be used.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624

xml-dist-app-request@w3.org wrote on 09/10/2002 10:15:55 AM:

> 
> Marc,
> 
> Marc Hadley wrote:
> > On the editorial front I would like to recommend redressing the 
balance 
> > between MIME and DIME by adding a reference to the SOAP with 
Attachments 
> > note[1] rather than just MIME itself. I would also recommend that the 
> > bibliography entries for WS-Attachments, WS-Security and SOAP with 
> > Attachments be moved to a new section; "Non-normative References" in 
> > line with approach taken for parts 1 and 2 of the spec.
> 
> I think that as a reference to the SOAP with Attachments note is a much 
> asked thing, we should add it in the spec. I would be all the more 
> inclined to do it if we create a new section "Non-normative References" 
> as you suggest.
> 
> > On the technical front I wonder whether the spec should 
require/specify 
> > support for at least the CID[3] referencing scheme, rather than 
punting 
> > this completely to the packaging spec specification. This wouldn't 
> > preclude a packaging spec introducing additional referencing schemes 
but 
> > would provide at least a minimum of functionality common to all 
> > packaging specs.
> 
> I don't think we should include a CID referencing scheme in the 
> specification. I think the URI scheme used in a particular packaging 
> spec depends both on the packaging mechanism used and on the goal or 
> intent of the spec writer. I think that in some cases supporting a 
> specific URI scheme might be an hindrance for some packaging specs.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Hervé.
>