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

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

From: John J. Barton <John_Barton@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 12:03:59 -0800
Message-Id: <5.1.1.6.2.20030203115656.01ac46a0@hplex1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Rich Salz" <rsalz@datapower.com>
Cc: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <jones@research.att.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

As far as I can tell what Martin is asking for is what we might
call a "manifest".  By manifest I mean an XML representation
of the package metadata accessible by SOAP processing code.
At one point we considered this in SwA but decided that it would
be better layered separate from the package.   Conceptually the
manifest allows a software component to preprocess the message
for completeness and security independent of the message semantics
in the same way that a shipping manifest works on physical goods.
I believe that the ebXML folks had a manifest.

If this isn't what Martin meant, then hit delete now ;-)

John.


At 07:16 AM 2/3/2003 -0800, Martin Gudgin wrote:



> > -----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
>infoset.
>
>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:simpleContent>
>     <xs:extension base='xs:base64Binary" >
>       <xs:attribute name='href' type='xs:anyURI' />
>       <xs:attribute name='type' type='xxx:MimeType' fixed='text/xml' />
>     </xs:extension>
>   </xs:simpleContent>
></xs:complexType>
>
>where xxx:MimeType is some simple type that allows all the registered
>MIME types.
>
>Gudge

______________________________________________________
John J. Barton          email:  John_Barton@hpl.hp.com
http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/John_Barton/index.htm
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 Monday, 3 February 2003 15:27:29 GMT

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