W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > October 2001

Re: Possibility of an XML Document Type

From: Rebecca Dias <rdias@iona.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 10:41:33 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <03e401c14dac$1769fc20$bb495c42@rdias>
To: "Rich Salz" <rsalz@zolera.com>, "Corda, Ugo" <Ugo.Corda@usa.xerox.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
I agree.  Attachments should be used.

There seems to be enough fragmentation in the SOAP spec already providing too many avenues to accomplish the same goal.  Adding unnecessary datatypes opens the door for more interoperability challenges.

Best Practices need to be defined.


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Rich Salz 
  To: Corda, Ugo 
  Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org 
  Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 9:17 AM
  Subject: Re: Possibility of an XML Document Type

  > Yes, but I would prefer to reserve that for cases when it's really
  > necessary, e.g. when the main XML document has image attachments.

  I don't understand why images are "really necessary" and XML isn't, can
  you please explain?

  In general, I prefer attachments because the parsing is more efficient
  -- I don't have to create an entire string only to (quickly?:) replace
  it with an XML document.

  Zolera Systems, Your Key to Online Integrity
  Securing Web services: XML, SOAP, Dig-sig, Encryption
Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 10:45:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:16 UTC