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

RE: Issues with Packaging Application Payloads

From: James Snell <jsnell@lemoorenet.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 23:32:34 -0700
To: "Andrew Layman" <andrewl@microsoft.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FNEFKGCOPGCFLMCBIIIBOEFPCDAA.jsnell@lemoorenet.com>

Of course I agree with you :-) ... just to be clear though: is payload
validation the role of the API or the role of the protocol?  Comments
mentioned before state that it is the role of the API.  I would tend to
agree with that.  The end result of this conclusion is that the answer to
the whole XML packaging problem is "Yes, there would be problems using XML
as an envelope for XML if the XML being inserted is invalid, so just make
sure the XML is valid before you try it" as opposed to "Yes, we've
architected the protocol in such a way as to completely eliminate the
possibility of validity problems".

One question that I asked that I haven't seen an answer for is whether or
not this working group intends either directly or indirectly to work on a
standard API for implementing the packaging protocol?

- James

  -----Original Message-----
  From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Andrew Layman
  Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 2:30 PM
  To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
  Subject: RE: Issues with Packaging Application Payloads

  James Snell asked "Where exactly do we draw the lines between the
packaging protocol and the API that utilizes that protocol?"

  We draw the line at the protocol.

  Interop is based on the protocol, not the API, in the same way that HTML
interop is based on the agreed on grammar, syntax and semantics of HTML, not
on an API.  The HTML specification does not prescribe an API.

  If there is work on an API, that would be a distinct specification.
Received on Thursday, 19 October 2000 02:35:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:10 UTC