- From: Jack, Adam <AJack@neonsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 07:06:24 -0600
- To: James Snell <jsnell@lemoorenet.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
There really is no difference as long as we can come to an agreement on exactly how to insert the lump-o-binary into the body. Agreed, my point exactly (with the exception of one avoiding today's XML inside XML gotchas.) That issue could be addressed through adjustments to the XML specification rather easily. You are right, if people would go for that. Perhaps it is what is needed. Personally, I think that building an XML-based protocol that forms the basis of a new SMTP/HTTP/etc would not have a strong impact on network security administration. I think you missed my point, 'cos you agreed with it. I said (to Henrik) that having XP reliant upon another protocol HTTP/FTP/etc. would require multiple ports to be opened in the firewall, and I don't think that would be good. One only please. It'll take enough convincing (just like it did with Java Applets) to let something powerful and extensible into the enterprise, so having the envelope and data come in one protocol seem more likely to be accepted. Security guys can write proxys, validators, "XML firewalls", etc. and for this they'd probably want all the data in one. That said --- my bias is for passing XML document inside XP not huge binary files of images, etc. I suspect that for this FTP/HTTP/etc. are still right (and Henrik suggested.) As for the simplicity versus purity argument... It was just a comment on payload encoding, not on the rest of this stuff. I just would like to pass XML simply... regards Adam
Received on Tuesday, 3 October 2000 09:11:28 UTC