Re: Proposed resolution for issue 440

+1

Here's why I think your proposal is right for both questions (apparently
as opposed to Marc and possibly others):

1) The MIME multipart/related envelope is created as an optimization of
an infoset of a SOAP envelope. There's no way for unreferenced parts to
appear in there. For adding possible other attachments, this
multipart/related envelope should be viewed as the SOAP message, and
that can be embedded as the root part of an other multipart/related
envelope which can contain as many unreferenced parts as it wishes.

2) Because there are different possible semantics of the multiple
includes of one attachment (reference, copy), I agree these can be
handled by the layer above, which also has better knowledge of which
attachments are actually multiplied. This restriction doesn't restrict
the xbinc:Include element itself, it's just that we use it in one way.

Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Systinet Corporation
                   http://www.systinet.com/




On Wed, 2003-11-05 at 09:48, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> On the call today we discussed issue 440[1] which asks 
> 
> 1. 	whether MTOM packages can contain MIME body parts that are NOT
> referenced by an xbinc:Include element
> 2.	whether a MIME body oart can be referenced by multiple
> xbinc:Include elements
> 
> I took an action to propose a resolution to this issue, so here it is.
> 
> Proposed resolution:
> 
> Each MIME body part (except the root) MUST be referenced by exactly one
> xbinc:Include element. Intermediaries are required to respect this rule.
> 
> Rationale:
> 
> Allowing MIME parts that are unreferenced breaks the infoset model.
> Ensuring MIME parts are referenced exactly once simplifies
> implementations.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Gudge
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x440
>