W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > October 2002

RE: proposal for issue 393 (concrete packaging spec)

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 15:29:35 -0700
To: "'John J. Barton'" <John_Barton@hpl.hp.com>, <jones@research.att.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Cc: <jones@research.att.com>
Message-ID: <00c501c27bac$e00bb450$2d0ba8c0@beasys.com>


Of course it's not a SOAP issue.  Many of us have gnashed our teeth about
the lack of a general packaging solution for years now (me for at least 4),
but I think there's little interest in a general packaging solution.  At the
last AC meeting, Paul Cotton asked the W3C AC Members which companies would
send staff to a "packaging" working group, and only 3 put up their hand.
I'd rather solve the problem from a SOAP perspective, and then generalize if

I personally think that length-encoded XML would be a way better solution
than using MIME or DIME, but everybody that I've talked to thinks that that
is the spawn of the devil.  The thought of introducing non-parsed characters
into an XML next version gives most people a bad case of the shakes.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
> [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of John J. Barton
> Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 3:12 PM
> To: jones@research.att.com; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Cc: jones@research.att.com
> Subject: Re: proposal for issue 393 (concrete packaging spec)
> Consider packaging XML with non-XML content generally.  This
> isn't really a SOAP issue.  We should be able to develop a solution
> that would work for many XML languages and SOAP.
> John.
> At 02:04 PM 10/24/2002 -0400, Mark Jones wrote:
> >I volunteered to put together a proposal for resolving issue 393:
> >
> >   "The Web Services Architecture Working Group encourages the XML
> >   Protocol Working Group to produce a concrete packaging
> (attachment)
> >   specification to validate the SOAP/1.2 Attachment Feature
> >   specification. A normative standard for a concrete
> specification is
> >   also important for reference from other standards and
> specifications
> >   and is considered a high priority by the WSAWG.
> >
> >   The XML Protocol Working Group may be the most
> appropriate venue for
> >   this work; if not, the Web Services Architecture Working
> Group will
> >   probably recommend that a new Working Group be chartered
> to do this in
> >   the near future because the lack of a concrete
> specification that can
> >   be the basis for interoperable SOAP attachments
> implementations is a
> >   hole in the Web services architecture that needs to be
> addressed as
> >   soon as possible."
> >
> >
> >Background
> >
> >The Web Services Architecture Working Group has identified the lack
> >of standards for a concrete packaging specification as a serious
> >concern.  A dependence upon a packaging specification exists in
> >many enterprises:
> >  * other standards such as ebXML
> >  * frameworks such as the SOAP with Attachments API for Java
> >    (SAAJ) and JAX-RPC
> >  * company specifications and best common practice profiles
> >
> >Two packaging mechanisms have attracted particular attention:
> >  1) a MIME-multipart scheme, SOAP Messages with Attachments (SwA)
> >     [W3C Note, http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP-attachments].
> >  2) the Direct Internet Message Encapsulation (DIME) scheme
> [IETF Drafts,
> >
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nielsen-dime-02.txt and
>     http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nielsen-dime-soap-01.txt].
>Given the experience represented in the XML Protocol WG, the
>importance of a concrete packaging spec as recognized by the Web
>Services Architecture Working Group, and the potential issues involved
>in validating the SOAP/1.2 Attachment Feature specification, the XML
>Protocol WG should accept the challenge of addressing this issue.
>In addressing the issue, the XML Protocol WG would
>  * remain cognizant of the general imperative to prefer re-use
>    to invention
>  * acknowledge the mind share that already exists with SwA and DIME
>  * determine whether those schemes in their current form satisfy
>    all the relevant constraints imposed by the SOAP 1.2 Attachment
>    taking into account additional LC issues raised against that spec
>    such as 390, 391 and 392.
>    http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues#x390
>    http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues#x391
>    http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues#x392
>  * recommend minimal changes to these frameworks, create best common
>    practice profiles, or version the specs as required
>In the case of SwA, published as a W3C Note, it may be possible to see
>this "qualifying" activity as creating a new version of SwA (subject to
>IPR issues).
>In the case of DIME, published as an IETF draft, it is not clear to me
>how versioning it as a W3C spec could/would work.  (As an IETF draft,
>we cannot normatively reference it, even to bless it in a best common
>practice profile.)
>This activity would be independent of the effort to standardize SOAP
>1.2 and should not be construed as holding up progress on it in any
>way.  The WG member effort on packaging would be subordinate to
>efforts to get SOAP 1.2 out.  If the packaging effort cannot be
>completed within the time frame of the current charter (end of 2002),
>an extension would be sought to complete the activity (and any other
>additional work also accepted by the WG).

John J. Barton          email:  John_Barton@hpl.hp.com
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 Thursday, 24 October 2002 18:34:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:21 UTC