Re: [soapbuilders] Mime WSDL
- no response usually mean that the question I asked was stupid.
If it is, can someone please tell me off-line
At 23:32 6/7/2003, Grahame Grieve wrote:
>I am reading the wsdl's found at
>and the WSDL spec at http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl
>The exact nature of the link between a part of
>the SOAP message and the attachment is underspecified.
>in the example, and the soapbuilders examples, the
>name of the message part matches the name of the
>mime part, so the binary is expected to be a reference
>to an attachment. But this is not stated explicitly.
>1. Is the soapbuilders example right to use base64Binary?
>2. Should a receiving application that works with the
> services described in http://www.pocketsoap.com/interop/mime-rpc.wsdl
> be able to accept the binary parameter as either a
> base64Binary (as stated in the WSDL) or as an attachment,
> or should that WSDL be understood to say that the content
> can only come as an attachment?
>3. if the content that will go in the attachment is
> part of a complex type, how can the names be used to
> link the content to the attachment?
>4. a btw, the example WSDL seems to assume that the default
> namespace applies within an attribute with a QName type.
> My XML is weak, but I've not seen this before, and the
> schema spec appears to rule this out. Is this intended?
>5. while I'm at it: Is there any working implementations
> of these WSDL's?
>This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss
>implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/