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

RE: [DR008] - passing arbitrary content

From: Henry Lowe <hlowe@omg.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 18:17:40 -0500
Message-Id: <4.1.20001207181551.072f58d0@emerald.omg.org>
To: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
Cc: Paul Denning <pauld@mitre.org>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
I would suggest this is not such a good idea as, for other than 
HTTP, there won't be a standardized binding which will lead to 
non-interoperability for anything other than HTTP.

Henry
-------------------------------
At 01:24 PM 12/06/2000 -0500, Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com wrote:
>Other than some slight hesitance about whether this is consistent with our 
>charter, I like it.  Certainly the focus on tying it to the binding(s) 
>seems right.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
>Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
>One Rogers Street
>Cambridge, MA 02142
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Paul Denning <pauld@mitre.org>
>Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
>12/06/00 01:12 PM
>
> 
>        To:     xml-dist-app@w3.org
>        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/CAM/Lotus)
>        Subject:        RE: [DR008] - passing arbitrary content
>
>
>
>     Categories: 
>
>
>The statement in [1]
>
>"The methods described here treat the multipart MIME structure as 
>essentially a part of the transfer protocol binding, i.e., on par with the 
>
>transfer protocol headers as far as the SOAP message is concerned. "
>
>So, how about adding the following new DR6xx in section 3.6 to address 
>normative XP processing:
>
>[DR6xx] Arbitrary content (to include binary data) outside the XP message 
>shall be accomodated by the protocol binding.
>
>Paul
>
>At 11:27 AM 2000-12-05, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
>>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.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 7 December 2000 18:17:59 GMT

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