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

RE: [DR008] - passing arbitrary content

From: Kevin Mitchell <kevin.mitchell@xmls.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 20:57:24 GMT
Message-ID: <20001205.20572400@kevinm01.xmls.com>
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
CC: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
I absolutely agree that we should not be defining any new methods for 
handling binary data. The XSD, URI and MIME multipart approaches below 
are exactly the types of illustrations (i.e. solutions to use cases/usage 
scenarios) I thought we could include in the specification to show how 
one can use XP to handle binary data. Is this what you meant by the sentence:

"The WG will use existing mechanisms for handling binary data such as XSD
support for binary data and the use of URIs for referening data."

I think references to R401 (for XSD) and R403 (for URI references) are 
more appropriate/direct than DR700.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

On 12/5/00, 11:27:49 AM, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com> 
wrote regarding RE: [DR008] - passing arbitrary content:


> It is important to point out that there are already ways for dealing
> with so-called binary data without XP having to invent anything:

>   * Data can be carried as hex encoded data within the envelope
>   * Data can be referenced using a URI from within the envelope

> Note also that from an XP perspective there is no difference between
> "true" binary data or just some data that we don't want to express as
> "active" content in the XP envelope.

> One example of how to carry "binary" data is the MIME multipart/related
> protocol binding that has been proposed for SOAP [1]. It supports all
> data types that can be carried within a MIME body.

> The mechanisms above are sufficiently flexible to support a vast set of
> scenarios. However, one might put forward the argument that neither of
> these solutions are particularly efficient. The part that I would say is
> "out-of-scope" is that we will not in this WG define new mechanisms
> (specific to XP or otherwise) for carrying "binary" data.

> I would therefore suggest the wording:

> As expressed in R700, XP will support carrying application specific data
> within the envelope and to refer to application specific data outside
> the envelope. Application specific data may be encoded as binary data.
> The WG will use existing mechanisms for handling binary data such as XSD
> support for binary data and the use of URIs for referening data. The WG
> will not define new mechanisms for handling binary data.

> Henrik

> [1]
> 
http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/John_Barton/HTTP-A/SOAPAttachments16OCT00.h
tm
Received on Tuesday, 5 December 2000 15:57:03 GMT

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