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

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

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 07:16:56 -0800
Message-ID: <92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E02F4441E@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Rich Salz" <rsalz@datapower.com>
Cc: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <jones@research.att.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Salz [mailto:rsalz@datapower.com] 
> Sent: 01 February 2003 01:11
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: Sanjiva Weerawarana; jones@research.att.com; Martin 
> Gudgin; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: AFTF requirements, pre-2003/01/31 telcon
> > 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.
> What's the Infoset description of an external XML message 
> with its own DTD?
> What's the rationale for wanting to impose the Infoset model 
> on anything someone might want to reference from a SOAP 
> message?  What kinds of things do you think would be gained 
> and lost from this approach?

I think that given we have spent the last 2+ years defining envelope as
infoset and a processing model for that infoset it would behoove us to
make sure that we can at least map whatever we come up with into that

FWIW - I think a reasonable schema type for an element whose content was
an XML message with it's own DTD would be

<xs:complexType name='XMLDoc" >
    <xs:extension base='xs:base64Binary" >
      <xs:attribute name='href' type='xs:anyURI' />
      <xs:attribute name='type' type='xxx:MimeType' fixed='text/xml' />

where xxx:MimeType is some simple type that allows all the registered
MIME types.

Received on Monday, 3 February 2003 12:35:19 UTC

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