- From: Don Box <dbox@microsoft.com>
- Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 15:42:39 -0800
- To: "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Since publishing that paper at XML.COM, many people have been asking the exact same thing. I had several developers come up to me last week at XML Web Services One and thank us for validating the approach they've been using in deployed systems. In at least two of these cases, the developers looked at SwA (and WS-Attachments) and opted for the simpler approach that lets them stay in the world of XML. DB -----Original Message----- From: Anne Thomas Manes [mailto:anne@manes.net] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 9:29 AM To: Don Box; xml-dist-app@w3.org I certainly prefer the idea of using XInclude better than SwA or WS-Attachments. But why not just use base64? It's really the better way to go. > -----Original Message----- > From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org]On > Behalf Of Don Box > Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 1:46 AM > To: xml-dist-app@w3.org > Subject: Opaque data, XML, and SOAP > > > > A few of us have spent some time thinking about the problem space > and wrote the down our thoughts in this area: > > http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/02/26/binaryxml.html > > DB > >
Received on Saturday, 8 March 2003 18:42:51 UTC