- From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 10:03:37 -0800
- To: "Dale Moberg" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>, "Xml-Dist-App@W3. Org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Dale, Sorry for the confusion. The intent was only to prohibit WITHIN the multipart/related that contains the SOAP envelope. Phew! Glad we cleared that up... Gudge > -----Original Message----- > From: Dale Moberg [mailto:dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com] > Sent: 06 November 2003 17:50 > To: Martin Gudgin; Xml-Dist-App@W3. Org > Subject: RE: Proposed resolution for issue 440 > > > Gudge says: > > I'm afraid I don't understand any of the below. Why could > MTOM multipart/related packages not be transmitted over HTTP? Or SMTP? > > All we are saying in PASWA/MTOM is that for the > multipart/related 'package' that contains the SOAP envelope > every other MIME part in that 'package' MUST be referenced by > EXACTLY one xbinc:Include in that envelope. > > Dale replies: > > OK, with that clarification (which I proposed in about the > 3rd paragraph), my concerns are lessened a bit. > > My point was that you cannot prohibit, for example, combining > that multipart/related MTOM bundle with something else in, > for example, a multipart/mixed or a different encompassing > multipart/related. If you did assert that those combinations > were prohibited, you would be violating what is officially > allowed for the MIME entity conveyed by SMTP or HTTP > transports. What is the difficulty in understanding that? > > However, you are not prohibiting those combinations, as you > have now indicated. Thanks for your clarification. > > > >
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2003 13:03:40 UTC