Re: Proposed Infoset Addendum to SOAP Messages with Attachments

The way I understood the model Gudge is right- you cannot have
an unreferenced part just in the MIME serialization because
that serialization must come from a single model which may be
serialized as SOAP 1.2 (with the base64 stuff) and the SOAP 1.2
serialization does not allow one to have unreferenced "attachments."

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Herve Ruellan" <herve.ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>; <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: Proposed Infoset Addendum to SOAP Messages with Attachments


>
> I think I would have a more mitagated response:
>
> The approach by itself does not allow the equivalent of unreferenced
> attachments (you may however achieve this by including an attachment in
> an "unreferenced" SOAP header).
>
> However, depending on the method used for carrying the binary, you may
> include there unreferenced attachments. For exemple, if you are using
> MIME to carry the binary, nothing precludes adding a MIME part not
> referenced in the SOAP envelope.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Hervé.
>
> Martin Gudgin wrote:
> > No.
> >
> > Gudge
> >
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
> >>Sent: 28 March 2003 04:29
> >>To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> >>
> >>
> >>Hi Gudge,
> >>
> >>Does this approach allow the equivalent of unreferenced attachments?
> >>With SwA one can have attachments that are not referred to
> >>directly by the SOAP envelope, but are there if one wants to
> >>get at them.
> >>
> >>Thanks,
> >>
> >>Sanjiva.
> >>

Received on Friday, 28 March 2003 10:25:30 UTC