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

RE: Opaque data, XML, and SOAP

From: Don Box <dbox@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:35:52 -0800
Message-ID: <57EF69AF56D92148984EDA317408294504536597@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:elharo@metalab.unc.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 10:09 AM
> To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> 
> 
> At 12:13 PM -0500 3/11/03, Marc Hadley wrote:
> >+1. IMO we need a standard mechanism for 'abstractly including'
> >binary data in an infoset. By 'abstractly including' I mean that the
> >data is included in an abstract sense rather than included literally
> >as CIIs. 'Binary smart' processing can take account of the abstract
> >inclusion, existing processing can ignore it.
> 
> 
> I don't think we need that. In fact, I think we don't need any way to
> include information in the Infoset that cannot actually be part of a
> genuine XML document, and I find such attempts damaging and hostile
> to XML.

Peace. No hostility meant here. Everything that's been discussed has a
pure text-based representation that is XML 1.0-friendly. 
 
> SOAP may have a need to include binary data in its processing. If so,
> then it needs to build on top of something other than XML and the XML
> Infoset. 

We've tried to be clear that the two are distinct. If people want to put
messages on the wire using pure XML 1.0, XML 1.0 + multipart MIME or
something more exotic, more power to them. Our position is that
independent of the concrete transfer syntax, the abstract data model for
a message should be the SOAP envelope EII. No more, no less.

DB
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2003 17:25:41 GMT

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