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

Re: new version of requirements following ARTF telcon of 2003-01-15

From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:46:39 -0500
To: "John J. Barton" <John_Barton@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, jones@research.att.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org, xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
Message-id: <87A222B4-2D57-11D7-9E13-0003937568DC@sun.com>

On Monday, Jan 20, 2003, at 12:23 US/Eastern, John J. Barton wrote:
> > Considerations
> >
> > * The specification should not invent a packaging scheme.
> Perhaps I don't quite understand the meaning of "packaging scheme" but 
> the way I
> interpret this is "the ARTF is going to pick between SwA and DIME", 
> which isn't
> truly possible since neither are sound enough.  Perhaps you mean
>    The specification should resemble existing packaging schemes.
> ?
I think there's a (perhaps not clearly made) distinction between 
packaging scheme and attachment specification. My take on 'not invent a 
packaging scheme' is that the attachment specification will use an 
existing technology like MIME or DIME or ZIP (or tar or jar or ...) as 
the underlying packaging technology rather than inventing everything 
from the ground up. The attachment specification would describe how to 
use the underlying packaging scheme for packaging SOAP messages and 


Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Tuesday, 21 January 2003 10:46:17 UTC

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