- From: John J. Barton <John_Barton@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 10:54:16 -0800
- To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, dorchard@bea.com
- Cc: andrewl@microsoft.com, jacek@systinet.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org
At 12:25 PM 12/12/2001 -0500, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote: [snip] >The one one thing I'm trying to add is that, for each attachment >architecture (SwA, DIME), we document to the extent practical the URI's >that will be used to refer to information >>carried with the message<<. >Otherwise, I can claim I'm doing SOAP+Attachments, use href="http://....", >and say "well, I thought it was an attachment, too bad you had to go out >on the web to get it." I want to be able to say "If you're using S+A, >then a URI of the form cid:// is an attempt to reference information >carried with the message...at a given node where the message has been >completely received, retrieval of the resources referenced by such URI's >SHOULD NOT fail due to lack of network connectivity, etc." > >In other words, I'm looking for a simple abstraction, presumbaly based on >URI's, to distinguish (an attempt to reference) information that is truly >an attachment from an attempt to reference all the other useful >information on the web. That's all I'm looking for. Perhaps we can posit this as a requirement for a XMLP packaging solution. That is SOAP (XMLP?) 1.2 says nothing about any URI scheme, but 1.3 says that certain schemes like "cid:" come with application requirements and specific faults. Well assuming the WG buys into a packaging solution in 1.3 vs one in 1.2 vs forgetting about it. John. ______________________________________________________ John J. Barton email: John_Barton@hpl.hp.com http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/John_Barton/index.htm MS 1U-17 Hewlett-Packard Labs 1501 Page Mill Road phone: (650)-236-2888 Palo Alto CA 94304-1126 FAX: (650)-857-5100
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2001 13:52:17 UTC