| Newsgroups |
gmane.text.xml.distributed |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
I've just done a quick skim of MTOM, following up on XOP notes of last
night. I did not get to the media-type registration part. Also: I have
>not< had time to proofread the following. My meeting is about to start,
and I want to get this sent out in time for review. Apologies for any
errors.
Most Important
--------------
* Section 3.2: "When sending a SOAP message using the MIME
Multipart/Related Serialization, the SOAP message Data Model is serialized
as specified in [XOP] 4.1 Creating XOP packages. " -> "When sending a
SOAP message using the MIME Multipart/Related Serialization, the SOAP
>envelope Infoset< is serialized as specified in [XOP] 4.1 Creating XOP
packages. "
* Section 4.3.1: "Generate a binding-dependent SOAP fault" This seems to
violate the rule in the SOAP binding framework that a SOAP binding must be
capable of sending any legal SOAP envelope infoset. The bullet as
supplied seems to preclude, for example, sending a SOAP message that
contains an error report showing a fragment with a xop:Include in it. I
would prefer to leave out this bullet, but I do realize that in so doing
we make implementations a bit more complicated, and to handle a quite
obscure case. Still, I don't like the precedent that a SOAP binding can
punt on sending any SOAP envelopes that prove inconvenient. Maybe we
debated this earlier and I forgot?
Editorial or minor
------------------
* Section 1.2: "The implementation of the abstract feature as a binding
feature for an HTTP binding is intended to enhance the SOAP HTTP binding
described in [SOAP Part 2] 7. SOAP HTTP Binding or an updated version of
it. " This wording seems clumsy, but I don't have time to propose
alternative.
* Section 1.2: "the specification described herein fulfills these
requirements" maybe should be "the specification described herein fulfills
>those< requirements"?
* Section 2.3.4: "The choice of whether to implement such cooperation,
and if so the means used, is at the discretion of the binding
specification(s) and/or the implementation of the bindings. properties."
Remove trailing word "properties".
* Section 2.3.4: "Other bindings may be capable of optimization, but may
or may not choose to or succeed in optimizing the same portions (if any)
that were optimized in the inbound message." Grammar. Parses as
"bindings...may or may not choose to...optimizing". Suggest "Other
bindings may be capable of optimization, but may or may not >choose to
optimize< the same portions (if any) that were optimized in the inbound
message. "
* Section 3.3, 2nd para: "incorrectly" is spelled incorrectly
* Section 4.3: "the XOP Infoset build" -> "the XOP Infoset built"
* Section 4.3.1.1 (2nd bullet in first list): "extracted binary parts
MUST NOT be referenced with more than one xop:Include in the SOAP message
part. " -> "extracted binary parts MUST NOT be referenced >by<more than
one xop:Include in the SOAP message part. " Not important, but saying
"reference with" seems a bit clumsy.
--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------