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

Re: Optimisations other than Base64

From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 10:42:03 -0700
Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, "Xml-Dist-App@W3. Org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
To: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Message-Id: <21918152-C2B5-11D7-BF6E-00039396E15A@bea.com>

We are, but that's opportunistic. Perhaps a better way of stating it 
would be: do we want to always have a tight binding (to use an 
overloaded term) between the types visible or associated with the 
infoset and the encodings used to optimize the message?


On Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 10:29 AM, Anish Karmarkar wrote:

> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
>>
>> I agree that one *could* model this as sending the type information. 
>> However, one could also model it as encoding information that happens 
>> to, sometimes, correspond to the types evident in the message.
>>
>> The key question, to me, is whether or not it's desirable to always 
>> surface the encoding/type information in the Infoset.
>
> Aren't we already doing that with the xmime:MediaType attribute?
> -Anish
> --
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 29, 2003, at 03:49 PM, noah_mendelsohn@bea.com wrote:
>>
>>> Right.  I think we need to also relate this to the ongoing analysis 
>>> of the
>>> XQuery/XPath data model.  That model provides for all legal schema 
>>> types.
>>> So, we need to consider all of these aspects of the question.  Then 
>>> again,
>>> it seems to me that the tough question is going to be, whether for 
>>> base64
>>> only or for more types: what do you reconstruct at the receiver, and 
>>> what
>>> are the intermediary rules.  One might take the view that optimizing 
>>> more
>>> than one type encourages one to send the actual type label as part 
>>> of the
>>> model.  Certainly the XQuery model suggests that the type 
>>> information is
>>> first class in the model, and not just plumbing for the 
>>> optimization.  I
>>> think that will be one of the main interesting questions for the 
>>> subgroup
>>> that explores the multitype question.
>>>
>>> In any case, thanks for openning the issue.  Cheers.
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
>>> IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
>>> One Rogers Street
>>> Cambridge, MA 02142
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
>>> Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
>>> 07/29/2003 05:43 PM
>>>
>>>
>>>         To:     "Xml-Dist-App@W3. Org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
>>>         cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
>>>         Subject:        Optimisations other than Base64
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I took an action item at the F2F to raise a new issue.
>>>
>>> 1. Should MTOM accommodate encodings/optimizations other than base64?
>>>     a. If so, should the list be open-ended (i.e., extensible)?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2003 14:01:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:14 GMT