- From: John J. Barton <John_Barton@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:00:05 -0800
- To: "Herve Ruellan" <herve.ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Hmm... I guess that would a SOAP Message with Attachments and Other Stuff? Or to put it less cryptically: other stuff in the same package has no meaning for the SOAP processing if the SOAP message doesn't reference it in some way. For reasons of security it may be desirable to have the packaging layer optionally insure that no extra baggage arrived in the message. At 08:47 AM 3/28/2003 +0100, Herve Ruellan wrote: >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. >> >>______________________________________________________ >>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 Friday, 28 March 2003 11:00:17 UTC