Re: Language for resolving issue 440
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.xml.distributed |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Marc Hadley asks: >> 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 ? Did we conclude that? More specifically, did we conclude that for Miffy or for the HTTP binding as well? Not surprisingly, I'm fairly strongly opposed to allowing variability in the content sent by the HTTP binding. That said, I may just be repressing memories of a decision that went counter to my preferences. I've just read the review copies of the specs, and regardless of what our issue resolutions say (and they should be clear), the current miffy text does allow for separate parts. The HTTP binding could probably be read either way, since it says to make a part for each optimized piece, but doesn't really say whether that means >only< for each optimized piece. I think we should remind ourselves what the resolution is on the http binding, and clarify the MTOM document either way. I think I can live with the variability in Miffy/XOP. -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------