RE: [ebxml-cppa] Discussion about support for simple part

["Dale Moberg" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>]

Title: Message

Would  the 2.x schema then have something like a choice over CompositeList and Constituent (for example),

so that when a simple Constituent appears, it is just the simple MIME part that is the only packaging?

 

I think that would be fine when we do a schema change and an update to 2.0 where needed.

 

I had hoped to avoid doing a schema errata at this time, however.

 

I agree with you that the tooling impact may be a problem now that we have several  implementations in production.

 

I think that I am struggling with handling this as an immediate errata versus as a maintenance issue. In some ways, the maintenance issue approach seems better over the long haul. Maybe we can reprioritize the 2.1 schema update (extensibility, this fix, new defined DocExchange content model choices) to get it out earlier.

 

It looks like messaging is planning on a 2.1 errata fix and clarification version, and then a 3.0 version for SOAP 1.2 and allowing use of several new WS- header blocks.

 

All things to factor in...

 

Dale

-----Original Message-----
From: Himagiri.Mukkamala@sybase.com [mailto:Himagiri.Mukkamala@sybase.com]
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 9:21 AM
To: ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ebxml-cppa] Discussion about support for simple part
Importance: Low

From section 8.6.2

"The CompositeList element SHALL be omitted from
Packaging when no security encapsulations or composite multiparts are used".

Have no idea from this statement. which link for packaging indicates
the simple part being used.

What I was proposing was to change the description of composite element
to indicate that if there was only one constituent without encapsulation, then
mimetype does not correspond to composite mime types like multipart/signed, etc.
In this case mime/type of composite is same as constituent.
This is true where MSH acks do not carry a payload and can be sent as single mime parts.

Reason I was heading in this direction was to see packaging as source
of content description and hence later on when we make schema changes
provide a link to simple part without gong through composite.

Problem I see with dales suggestion is implementors looking to find a
"Packaging" element with packaingID from the ActionBinding, will
be returned with a SimplePart and will amount to some changes.