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

Re: [AF] relative URIs for attachments

From: John J. Barton <John_Barton@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 07:47:01 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: "Herve Ruellan" <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, xml-dist-app@w3.org

I haven't followed your work in detail, but perhaps the following suggestion
will be helpful:

At 02:27 PM 9/12/2002 +0200, Herve Ruellan wrote:
>I don't think we should change the definition of a Secondary Part which is 
>currently (i.e. keep URI, and do not replace it by URI reference):
>Secondary Part
>A document or entity related to the primary SOAP message part in some 
>manner. A secondary part is a resource in the sense that it has identity 
>and is identified by a URI. The representation of the resource can be of 
>any type and size. Secondary parts are informally referred to as attachments.

This definition uses five different nouns as synonyms for "secondary part": 
document, entity, resource,
representation, and attachment.  Of these the only one that makes sense to 
most readers is
"attachment".  An attachment can be, eg, an executable program: not much 
like a document.
An "entity" adds nothing.  Both "resource" and "representation" lead to 
such an involved discussion
amongst Web experts that the value of these words in a useful specification 
has to be questioned.

Perhaps you will consider starting over:
Secondary Part

A collection of bits referenced by a URI in the primary SOAP message and 
transferred along with that message.  Secondary parts
related to SOAP messages as "attachments" related to e-mail messages.

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, 12 September 2002 10:47:06 UTC

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