W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > February 2003

RE: AFTF requirements, pre-2003/01/31 telcon

From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 09:20:29 -0500
To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Cc: jones@research.att.com, "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org, xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFA7602521.6B664AF4-ON85256CC1.004DD0E6-85256CC1.004EC775@us.ibm.com>
Gudge,

Please help me understand what you mean by this. 

As I understand it, this requirement would seem to preclude the ability to 
carry an XML document
in a message. 

Quoting from the XML Infoset spec:

"There is exactly one document information item in the information set, 
and all other information items are 
accessible from the properties of the document information item, either 
directly or indirectly through the 
properties of other information items."

Suppose I want to offer a Web service that performed spell-checking of 
documents.
This requirement would preclude this sort of service so it would seem. In 
fact, it would seem to
preclude any service that operated upon a document.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624

Martin Gudgin wrote on 01/31/2003 03:13:24 PM:

> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] 
> > Sent: 31 January 2003 19:39
> > To: Martin Gudgin; jones@research.att.com; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: AFTF requirements, pre-2003/01/31 telcon 
> > 
> > 
> > "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com> writes:
> > > 
> > > We would like to add another DR for discussion. This is 
> > essentially a 
> > > rewording of my earlier infoset related requirement in 
> > concrete form. 
> > > I will still be submitting a comment on the abstract feature spec.
> > > 
> > > DRXX - A message with all its parts, however separated physically, 
> > > must be representable as a single infoset and describable 
> > as a single 
> > > XML element in an XML schema.
> > 
> > Is this more a WSDL level requirement or a packaging 
> > requirement? 
> 
> I think you could argue that the second clause of the sentence is a WSDL
> requirement.
> 
> > If its the latter, isn't it basically saying the 
> > packaging must be a single XML element?
> 
> I do not see 'representable as a single infoset' as meaning 'packing
> must be a single XML element'
> 
> > 
> > Even if the serialization of each of the parts is in XML, why 
> > do you want to preclude the following model:
> >     <soap:envelope>
> >       <soap:body>
> >         <the main thing goes here/>
> >         <"attachment" 1 goes here/>
> >         <"attachment" 2 goes here/>
> >         ...
> >       </soap:body>
> >     </soap:envelope>
> > 
> > Or is this kind of packaging supported in your requirement? (I can't
> > tell.) 
> 
> I believe the requirement allows the above ( the single XML element
> would in this case be either soap:Body or soap:Envelope ).
> 
> > Does it preclude a MIME (e.g., SwA) packaging?
> 
> I do not believe that this requirement precludes any particular
> packaging scheme, per se.
> 
> Gudge
> 
Received on Sunday, 2 February 2003 09:21:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:13 GMT