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

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

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 12:13:24 -0800
Message-ID: <92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E02D30BFB@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <jones@research.att.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>



> -----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 Friday, 31 January 2003 15:14:07 GMT

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