RE: Language for resolving issue 440

Yes, that language is in the spec too.

Gudge 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Hadley [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: 15 January 2004 16:39
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: 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.
> 
>