- From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 12:13:24 -0800
- To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <jones@research.att.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] > Sent: 31 January 2003 19:39 > To: Martin Gudgin; jones@research.att.com; xml-dist-app@w3.org > Subject: Re: AFTF requirements, pre-2003/01/31 telcon > > > "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com> writes: > > > > We would like to add another DR for discussion. This is > essentially a > > rewording of my earlier infoset related requirement in > concrete form. > > I will still be submitting a comment on the abstract feature spec. > > > > DRXX - A message with all its parts, however separated physically, > > must be representable as a single infoset and describable > as a single > > XML element in an XML schema. > > Is this more a WSDL level requirement or a packaging > requirement? I think you could argue that the second clause of the sentence is a WSDL requirement. > If its the latter, isn't it basically saying the > packaging must be a single XML element? I do not see 'representable as a single infoset' as meaning 'packing must be a single XML element' > > Even if the serialization of each of the parts is in XML, why > do you want to preclude the following model: > <soap:envelope> > <soap:body> > <the main thing goes here/> > <"attachment" 1 goes here/> > <"attachment" 2 goes here/> > ... > </soap:body> > </soap:envelope> > > Or is this kind of packaging supported in your requirement? (I can't > tell.) I believe the requirement allows the above ( the single XML element would in this case be either soap:Body or soap:Envelope ). > Does it preclude a MIME (e.g., SwA) packaging? I do not believe that this requirement precludes any particular packaging scheme, per se. Gudge
Received on Friday, 31 January 2003 15:14:07 UTC