RE: [ebxml-cppa] Discussion about support for simple part

Title: Message

Would  the 2.x schema then have something like a choice over 
CompositeList and Constituent (for example),

so 
that when a simple Constituent appears, it is just the simple MIME part that is 
the only packaging?

 

I 
think that would be fine when we do a schema change and an update to 2.0 where 
needed.

 

I had 
hoped to avoid doing a schema errata at this time, however.

 

I 
agree with you that the tooling impact may be a problem now that we have 
several  implementations in production.

 

I 
think that I am struggling with handling this as an immediate errata versus as a 
maintenance issue. In some ways, the maintenance issue approach seems better 
over the long haul. Maybe we can reprioritize the 2.1 schema update 
(extensibility, this fix, new defined DocExchange content model choices) to get 
it out earlier.

 

It 
looks like messaging is planning on a 2.1 errata fix and clarification version, 
and then a 3.0 version for SOAP 1.2 and allowing use of several new WS- header 
blocks. 

 

All 
things to factor in...

 

Dale

  

  
-----Original Message-----
From: 
   [mailto:] 
  
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 9:21 AM
To: 
  
Subject: [ebxml-cppa] Discussion 
  about support for simple part
Importance: 
  Low

From section 8.6.2 
  

"The CompositeList element SHALL 
  be omitted from 
Packaging when no 
  security encapsulations or composite multiparts are used". 
  

Have no idea from this statement. which 
  link for packaging indicates 
the 
  simple part being used. 

What I was 
  proposing was to change the description of composite element 
to indicate that if there was only one constituent 
  without encapsulation, then 
mimetype 
  does not correspond to composite mime types like multipart/signed, etc. 
  
In this case mime/type of composite is same 
  as constituent. 
This is true where MSH 
  acks do not carry a payload and can be sent as single mime parts. 
  

Reason I was heading in this direction 
  was to see packaging as source 
of 
  content description and hence later on when we make schema changes 
  
provide a link to simple part without gong 
  through composite. 

Problem I see 
  with dales suggestion is implementors looking to find a 
"Packaging" element with packaingID from the 
  ActionBinding, will 
be returned with a 
  SimplePart and will amount to some changes.