Re: an oversimplification in mime-doc.wsdl?
- I had taken a look at the example you mention in the wsdl spec
some time ago but it fails to cover exactly the case I _am_
looking to cover, which is the case where the attachments ARE
referenced in the body.
So I am still wondering how to modify the doc-literal test case (
http://www.pocketsoap.com/interop/mime-doc.wsdl ) so that it
covers the case where the attachments ARE referenced in the
body (and there are other elements of interest in the return type).
Does any one know if this is doable via either of the two options I
outlined in my previous email?
--- In email@example.com, "Wes Moulder" <
> From the wsdl spec, I'd go with the wsdl segments frombelow:
> The gist of it is that the return is going to be specified in body,
> two attachments (unreferenced in the body)