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

RE: Proposed Infoset Addendum to SOAP Messages with Attachments

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:13:18 -0800
To: "'John J. Barton'" <John_Barton@hpl.hp.com>, "'Marc Hadley'" <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>, "'Martin Gudgin'" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <026d01c2f3d4$25750ec0$02f8000a@beasys.com>

BEA and Microsoft did propose to the XML Core group a few weeks ago an
xinclude 1.1 that has parse=base64 and parse=hexbinary, but that isn't yet
available on a public link.

We like the idea of leveraging an extension to xinclude, but we do have to
be careful of timing of the specs for obvious reasons.

One of the reasons for having the xbinc:DoInclude element is that it allows
the dependency on xbinc:Include to be changed to xi:Include11.  If there
were no xbinc:DoInclude, it would be much harder to change to xi:Include.

Cheers,
Dave

> This is the same point I was getting at with my comment about "why
> base64".  Perhaps we can go to an extension of
> XInclude that adds parse="base64" and parse="none" (or
> parse="binary" if
> you like).  The semantics of these would
> be quite close to the current parse="xml" and parse="text", but for
> parse="none" you could not send the result through
> an XML parser.
>
> Breaking this out as a separate proposal, an extension of
> XInclude would
> also make the work going on here have more
> leverage as it would provide a solution beyond SOAP and SwA.
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 26 March 2003 15:13:02 GMT

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