Re: [ebxml-iic] minutes, and next call - follow up comments

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

>
>
> Durand: In thecase I describe, Test Driver scripting must allow to 
> build the entire message (header and attachements) via API calls (i.e.
> we may not have the liberty to craft the envelope via XSLT). So in 
> that case the "parameters" for header would be interpreted into
> API calls themeselves.
>
> [MIKE3] – It sounds like you are saying that an implementor must 
> support both API and XSLT, since I may write my <PutMessage> operation 
> using the <Mutator> to transform it into a viable message while 
> another test writer may define their <PutMessage> operation without a 
> <Mutator>, relying on an underlying API to interpret the declaratoin 
> and generate the message.
>

> <<<<<That would work if we state in the specification that, in the 
> absence of a <Mutator> element a <MessageDeclaration> MUST be 
> interpreted by an appropriate API. (That was how the Test Framework 
> was originally specified).>>>>>
>
mm1: Can we dictate that both must be supported or that an appropriate 
capability should be available for message construction.