Re: Language for resolving issue 440

I don't recall - do we already have text that captures the other part 
of the resolution, namely that MTOM doesn't preclude additional parts 
in the package not reference via miffy:Include ?

Marc.

On Jan 14, 2004, at 10:29 PM, Martin Gudgin wrote:

> At the FTF in San Francisco, Marc Hadley and I took an action to 
> propose
> wording for the agreed resolution of issue 440. I note that Section
> 4.3.1 of the latest editors draft contains the following language:
>
> Each optimized Node MUST generate exactly one extracted binary part in
> the resulting package. I.e., extracted binary parts MUST NOT be
> referenced with more than one miffy:Include in the SOAP message part.
>
>
> This language seems to be along the right lines, although I'm not sure
> it's entirely appropriate to the section it's in ( which is talking
> about serialization, whereas the phrasing above seems to be somewhat
> related to deserialization ). Anyhow, I'll propose alternative wording
> by the Monday deadline if I think it's critical given our pub schedule.
>
> GUdge
>
---
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
Web Products, Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.