- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 11:47:49 -0400
- To: "Christopher B Ferris" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "Herve Ruellan" <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Chris Ferris suggests: >> 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. I think these are implementation decisions outside the scope of our specifications. I think we say in each binding spec: "a correctly formed transmission of an envelope plus attachments looks like this". In other words, it's got certain URIs, is packaged in the transport in a certain way, etc. How your code puts that together is completely up to you, and not visible from the outside. I write software where the app asks the binding, you write software where the app tells the binding. If both put conformant bits on the wire, we're OK. Of course, this doesn't help you throw out my Java code so that you can swap in yours, but that's never the job of the SOAP spec. Implementation-specific standards (e.g. Java API standards for creating attachments) can be established by others, if desired, to solve this problem. Many thanks. Noah ------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 10 September 2002 11:51:45 UTC