Thanks Chris, I agree.
Since the possibility exists for SOAP-Body payload, any interoperability test
will have to include support (a test) for this. I especially appreciate your
explanation of how this might be done.
Thanks Again,
David Fischer
Drummond Group.
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:]On Behalf Of
christopher ferris
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 1:29 PM
To: David Fischer
Cc: ebXML Msg; David Burdett; Ian. C. Jones (E-mail)
Subject: Re: T2 Issues
David,
Please see below. Again, we wanted to discourage the practice
so there isn't any prescriptive example that demonstrates this
approach by design. We can't and probably shouldn't preclude
it though.
Cheers,
Chris
David Fischer wrote:
<snip/>
>
> ===Issue 6
> Section 8.11 Manifest element says:
>
> It is RECOMMENDED that no payload data be present in the SOAP Body.
>
> If it was, how would it be identified in the Manifest? BizTalk uses a
Document
> element (vs. an Attachment element) for this purpose. We don't have anything
> equivalent that I can see. I would rather take out this statement and
possibly
> replace it with something like "All payload data MUST be carried by Reference
> (URI) or in an Attachment (CID)."
A valid URI would be an XPath expression that addressed the
element contained as a sibling to the Manifest in the SOAP Body.
e.g.
xlink:href="//SOAP:Body/MyBodyElement[1]"
or equally valid if the element has an XML ID attribute:
xlink:href="id(someid)"
<snip/>
