- From: John J. Barton <John_Barton@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 07:47:01 -0700
- To: "Herve Ruellan" <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
I haven't followed your work in detail, but perhaps the following suggestion will be helpful: At 02:27 PM 9/12/2002 +0200, Herve Ruellan wrote: >... > >I don't think we should change the definition of a Secondary Part which is >currently (i.e. keep URI, and do not replace it by URI reference): ><current> >Secondary Part > >A document or entity related to the primary SOAP message part in some >manner. A secondary part is a resource in the sense that it has identity >and is identified by a URI. The representation of the resource can be of >any type and size. Secondary parts are informally referred to as attachments. ></current> This definition uses five different nouns as synonyms for "secondary part": document, entity, resource, representation, and attachment. Of these the only one that makes sense to most readers is "attachment". An attachment can be, eg, an executable program: not much like a document. An "entity" adds nothing. Both "resource" and "representation" lead to such an involved discussion amongst Web experts that the value of these words in a useful specification has to be questioned. Perhaps you will consider starting over: <proposed> Secondary Part A collection of bits referenced by a URI in the primary SOAP message and transferred along with that message. Secondary parts related to SOAP messages as "attachments" related to e-mail messages. </proposed> ______________________________________________________ John J. Barton email: John_Barton@hpl.hp.com http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/John_Barton/index.htm MS 1U-17 Hewlett-Packard Labs 1501 Page Mill Road phone: (650)-236-2888 Palo Alto CA 94304-1126 FAX: (650)-857-5100
Received on Thursday, 12 September 2002 10:47:06 UTC