- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 08:49:40 -0400
- To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
I've just done a quick skim of MTOM, following up on XOP notes of last night. I did not get to the media-type registration part. Also: I have >not< had time to proofread the following. My meeting is about to start, and I want to get this sent out in time for review. Apologies for any errors. Most Important -------------- * Section 3.2: "When sending a SOAP message using the MIME Multipart/Related Serialization, the SOAP message Data Model is serialized as specified in [XOP] 4.1 Creating XOP packages. " -> "When sending a SOAP message using the MIME Multipart/Related Serialization, the SOAP >envelope Infoset< is serialized as specified in [XOP] 4.1 Creating XOP packages. " * Section 4.3.1: "Generate a binding-dependent SOAP fault" This seems to violate the rule in the SOAP binding framework that a SOAP binding must be capable of sending any legal SOAP envelope infoset. The bullet as supplied seems to preclude, for example, sending a SOAP message that contains an error report showing a fragment with a xop:Include in it. I would prefer to leave out this bullet, but I do realize that in so doing we make implementations a bit more complicated, and to handle a quite obscure case. Still, I don't like the precedent that a SOAP binding can punt on sending any SOAP envelopes that prove inconvenient. Maybe we debated this earlier and I forgot? Editorial or minor ------------------ * Section 1.2: "The implementation of the abstract feature as a binding feature for an HTTP binding is intended to enhance the SOAP HTTP binding described in [SOAP Part 2] 7. SOAP HTTP Binding or an updated version of it. " This wording seems clumsy, but I don't have time to propose alternative. * Section 1.2: "the specification described herein fulfills these requirements" maybe should be "the specification described herein fulfills >those< requirements"? * Section 2.3.4: "The choice of whether to implement such cooperation, and if so the means used, is at the discretion of the binding specification(s) and/or the implementation of the bindings. properties." Remove trailing word "properties". * Section 2.3.4: "Other bindings may be capable of optimization, but may or may not choose to or succeed in optimizing the same portions (if any) that were optimized in the inbound message." Grammar. Parses as "bindings...may or may not choose to...optimizing". Suggest "Other bindings may be capable of optimization, but may or may not >choose to optimize< the same portions (if any) that were optimized in the inbound message. " * Section 3.3, 2nd para: "incorrectly" is spelled incorrectly * Section 4.3: "the XOP Infoset build" -> "the XOP Infoset built" * Section 4.3.1.1 (2nd bullet in first list): "extracted binary parts MUST NOT be referenced with more than one xop:Include in the SOAP message part. " -> "extracted binary parts MUST NOT be referenced >by<more than one xop:Include in the SOAP message part. " Not important, but saying "reference with" seems a bit clumsy. -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 19 May 2004 08:50:20 UTC