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: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 03:09:33 -0800
Message-ID: <92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E02D30C29@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Rich Salz" <rsalz@datapower.com>, "John J. Barton" <John_Barton@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, <jones@research.att.com>, "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Streaming is very important to me too. I don't think that mapping the
serialization to an Infoset defeats streaming. 

Gudge

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Salz [mailto:rsalz@datapower.com] 
> Sent: 04 February 2003 02:52
> To: John J. Barton
> Cc: Martin Gudgin; noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com; 
> jones@research.att.com; Sanjiva Weerawarana; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: AFTF requirements, pre-2003/01/31 telcon
> 
> 
> > Ok, so now I am complete confused.  The likely outcome from 
> the AFTF 
> > effort would be a specification that would lead to a software 
> > component in a SOAP engine preceding XML parsing.  The 
> component would 
> > pull bits off the wire and prepare them for application level 
> > processing.
> 
> I hope it's not going to be required that ALL bits be pulled 
> off the wire before being processed. I'd like to use SOAP 
> with streaming media. (I think that also argues against the 
> Infoset proposal.)
>         /r$
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2003 10:25:30 GMT

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