Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [soapbuilders] Mime WSDL

Expand Messages
  • Grahame Grieve
    no response usually mean that the question I asked was stupid. If it is, can someone please tell me off-line thanks Grahame
    Message 1 of 3 , Jul 7, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      no response usually mean that the question I asked was stupid.
      If it is, can someone please tell me off-line

      thanks
      Grahame

      At 23:32 6/7/2003, Grahame Grieve wrote:

      >hi all
      >
      >I am reading the wsdl's found at
      >http://www.pocketsoap.com/interop/attachments.htm
      >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.
      >
      >Some questions:
      >
      >1. Is the soapbuilders example right to use base64Binary?
      > (http://www.pocketsoap.com/interop/mime-rpc.wsdl)
      >
      >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?
      >
      >thanks
      >Grahame
      >
      >
      >
      >-----------------------------------------------------------------
      >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:
      >soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.