Re: MTOM issue: does the HTTP update need to be a feature?

• From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
• Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:12:50 +0200
• To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>, "XMLP Dist App" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <042e01c33ff2$6a07afb0$5b1f11ac@mnotlaptop>

+1 - it seems to me that we need to revise or otherwise re-specify the
HTTP binding to encompass this abstract feature, not layer in more
features or have alternative bindings.

Cheers,


> I have a question about the MTOM document: does the HTTP implementation
> of the abstract feature actually need to be a SOAP feature?
>
> I thought that we would somehow extend the HTTP binding so that it
> implements section 2 using section 3. Section 4 doesn't do that
> extension, it introduces a feature that still has to be incorporated
> into the HTTP binding. So I suggest we rework section 4 to become the
> glue between our HTTP binding and section 3. It would keep most of
> section 4.3.

Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2003 13:01:41 UTC