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

RE: Opaque data, XML, and SOAP

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:36:34 -0800
Message-ID: <92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E04902B26@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

 

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com] 
> Sent: 11 March 2003 14:56
> To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rayw@netscape.com [mailto:rayw@netscape.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 8:49 AM
> > To: eugene@datapower.com
> > Cc: 'John J. Barton'; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Opaque data, XML, and SOAP
> > 
>  
> > What is obvious to me is that the infoset is a very poor place to 
> > carry  large binary data.
> 
> Hmmm.  I tend to agree, but it probably depends on what 
> "large" means in a particular context. I'll guess that what 
> we need are well-specified mechanisms that would allow 
> systems designers to *either* carry reasonably-sized binary 
> data along with the infoset when that is appropriate, or to 
> attach references to unreasonably sized binary data for the 
> situations where embedding it in the infoset is 
> inappropriate.

Given that the Infoset is an abstraction, rather than a serialization,
what does 'embedding it in the infoset' mean?

Gudge
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2003 11:41:33 GMT

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