W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > March 2002

Re: Back to Requirements (was RE: Web Service Definition [Was "Some T houghts ..."])

From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 16:20:13 -0500
Message-ID: <3C85368D.7060800@sun.com>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
CC: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Mark,

You can say that an element information item
carries binary data such as a gif, jpeg, whatever.
It is also possible to express it in terms of
SVG that could be transformed into a gif.

The point is that by saying that we describe the information
in terms of an XML Infoset that it doesn't necessarily
preclude other forms of expression/serialization from XML 1.0
avec angle brackets.

Cheers,

Chris

Mark Baker wrote:

>>Mark,
>>
>>I used the term "XML Infoset" which is not the same as
>>XML1.0 anglebrackets and so does not constrain the "what"
>>which amounts to some mechanism by which an XML Infoset
>>is "expressed" (serialized).
>>
> 
> Hmm, well, what kind of formats are expressible in the Infoset?  Can GIF
> be expressed, for example?  I don't know, but was assuming it couldn't.
> If it can, then I think your proposed definition is a fine one.
> 
> My response to Dave where I brought up the Infoset was meant to suggest
> that being less restrictive was good, but still not as good as not
> restricting I/O formats at all.
> 
> MB
> 
Received on Tuesday, 5 March 2002 16:21:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:24:55 GMT