RE: CNET.com - News - Enterprise Computing - Microsoft,IBM set asiderivalry to cr

[Dick Brooks <dick@8760.com>]

James, see responses inline.

Dick Brooks
Group 8760
110 12th Street North
Birmingham, AL 35203
dick@8760.com
205-250-8053
Fax: 205-250-8057
http://www.8760.com/

InsideAgent - Empowering e-commerce solutions

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James McCarthy [mailto:jamesm@webxi.com]
> Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2000 9:39 AM
> To: Ebxml
> Subject: RE: CNET.com - News - Enterprise Computing - Microsoft,IBM set
> aside rivalry to cr
>
>
> List-Unsubscribe:
>  <mailto:ebxml-transport-request@lists.ebxml.org?body=unsubscribe>
> List-Archive: <http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-transport>
> List-Help: <http://lists.ebxml.org/doc/email-manage.html>,
>  <mailto:ebxml-transport-request@lists.ebxml.org?body=help>
>
> Dick,
>
> I have looked at the SOAP 1.1 spec and have implemented a parser
> for it. The
> specification is so broad except for the specification of data types.
>
> I believe it would be trivial to put the ebXML headers in the SOAP header
> and the payload in a SOAP body. The only thing this would really require
> would be to define two namespaces, one for the ebXML headers and
> one by the
> application for its payload and then use the SOAP wrapper instead of MIME.
>

There were discussions at the TR&P meeting in July regarding SOAP, BizTalk
and ebXML. I believe would be possible to define the ebXML header as a SOAP
document (e.g. as per BizTalk). There seems to be limited benefit in doing
so. For example, it appears that BizTalk is only using the SOAP envelope
element and the mustUnderstand functionality. Clearly the mustUnderstand
function is useful for dealing with optional elements on the fly, and this
is good.

I don't believe we should "replace" the MIME packaging with XML packaging,
there are a number of issues with XML packaging that have been discussed
several times on this list and the SOAP list. There is also some discussion
of this in the enveloping spec.


> A simple specification document like the MIME wrapper spec should
> take care
> of the whole argument. Then we would have "ebXML over SOAP".
>
> I know this would not meet some of the ebXML requirements (mostly that the
> headers and payload are separate documents). But it would clarify the
> purpose of SOAP and our position in regards to SOAP.
>

I believe the more appropriate convergence, if it were to occur, would place
a SOAP document inside a ebXML MIME envelope. This is the same approach
Microsoft took with BizTalk.

> What do you think?
>
> Jim McCarthy
> WebXi, Inc.
> http://www.webxi.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dick Brooks [mailto:dick@8760.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 6:45 PM
> To: Ebxml
> Subject: CNET.com - News - Enterprise Computing - Microsoft,IBM set
> aside rivalry to cr
>
>
> FYI.... I've had more than one person ask me if the Sun/IBM disagreement
> would affect ebXML's chances...
>
> This press release isn't helping matters.
>
> Dick
>