W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > December 2000

[DR040] - Binary data

From: Kevin Mitchell <kevin.mitchell@xmls.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 15:38:38 GMT
Message-ID: <20001204.15383800@kevinm01.xmls.com>
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Current wording of DR040...
DR040 
                It is a requirement that binary data is supported. 
	Issue (i.040.01): Do we need to support explicit binary data (or just 
base64 encoding is fine). Absolute NO on one side, yes on other side. 
(open for discussion) We should get requirements for binary binding.
	Issue (i.040.02): Duplicate (Does support mean must specify one or more 
mechanisms?. Lots of discussion of whether this is needed it not).Is this 
is a part of the core or not? The charter says that we should make this a 
low-level priority. It is not clear that we should actually do this. It 
is not fair to say that we have nailed it simply because of demonstrating 
that it can be done on top. Glossary: what is binary and what is the use 
cases. What are the ways that SOAP can do it?
Proposal...
Given that binary data support is out of scope, but there is room to 
examine such issues if there is interest and time, I propose that DR040 
be reworded as a WG statement, and not as an explicit requirement.  Here 
is a proposed rewording:
"In keeping with the spirit of a minimalist design as specified in the 
XML Protocol Working Group Charter, the XML Protocol Working Group does 
not have specific requirements concerning binary data support.  However, 
the XML Protocol Working Group recognizes that some applications of the 
XML Protocol will require the exchange of binary data such as JPEG and 
PNG. To facilitate such implementations, the XML Protocol Working Group 
may illustrate how such exchanges may be accomplished in a non-normative 
section of the XML Protocol specification.  These illustrations will 
leverage the work already done in this area by the ebXML and RosettaNet 
groups."
Received on Monday, 4 December 2000 10:38:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:57 GMT