Re: SOAP 1.2 Attachment Feature review

[email protected] wrote:
> I am concerned about the interaction of URI addressing schemes to
> secondary parts and the SOAP execution model which permits various
> SOAP headers to be inserted and deleted by intermediaries under
> appropriate conditions (roles must match, software modules must exist,
> etc.).  Are there similarly conditions under which intermediaries may
> insert and delete secondary parts?  For example, are they allowed to
> create "dangling URIs"?

You may have noticed that the more recent SOAP specs say less 
about SOAP intermediaries than they used to. Essentially, the 
work is left to future specs.

This said, I think you raise a valid point; there is a missing 
section on SOAP intermediaries in the AF spec, even if that 
section is likely to be shorter than you might like (for the same 
reason as above).

> Secondly, is it clear which URI schemes are impervious to insertion,
> deletion, and modification of secondary parts?  For example, might
> there be a uniqueness problem with IDREFs?

The XMLP WG did not want to recommend a specific(s) URI scheme(s) 
in the AF spec; different applications have different needs. This 
was left to concrete Attachment feature specs.

Jean-Jacques.