[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: T2 Issues
Thanks Chris, I agree. Since the possibility exists for SOAP-Body payload, any interoperability test will have to include support (a test) for this. I especially appreciate your explanation of how this might be done. Thanks Again, David Fischer Drummond Group. -----Original Message----- From: Chris.Ferris@Sun.COM [mailto:Chris.Ferris@Sun.COM]On Behalf Of christopher ferris Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 1:29 PM To: David Fischer Cc: ebXML Msg; David Burdett; Ian. C. Jones (E-mail) Subject: Re: T2 Issues David, Please see below. Again, we wanted to discourage the practice so there isn't any prescriptive example that demonstrates this approach by design. We can't and probably shouldn't preclude it though. Cheers, Chris David Fischer wrote: <snip/> > > ===Issue 6 > Section 8.11 Manifest element says: > > It is RECOMMENDED that no payload data be present in the SOAP Body. > > If it was, how would it be identified in the Manifest? BizTalk uses a Document > element (vs. an Attachment element) for this purpose. We don't have anything > equivalent that I can see. I would rather take out this statement and possibly > replace it with something like "All payload data MUST be carried by Reference > (URI) or in an Attachment (CID)." A valid URI would be an XPath expression that addressed the element contained as a sibling to the Manifest in the SOAP Body. e.g. xlink:href="//SOAP:Body/MyBodyElement[1]" or equally valid if the element has an XML ID attribute: xlink:href="id(someid)" <snip/>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC