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

Re: PASWA, Include and Protocol Bindings

From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 08:39:48 -0700
Message-ID: <006101c31641$57caa710$9606a8c0@mnotlaptop>
To: "Marc Hadley" <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Cc: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Well, yes, but what you're really saying is that you want the benefits of
attachments even though you're transiting nodes which don't support
them... PASWA allows you to still do so without loss of information; you
only lose (a debatable amount of) efficiency. Without a non-PASWA approach
to attachments, you can't transit such nodes at all (except perhaps in an
application-specific manner).


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marc Hadley" <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
To: "Mark Nottingham" <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Cc: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>; <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>;
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: PASWA, Include and Protocol Bindings

> On Thursday, May 8, 2003, at 20:05 US/Eastern, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> >> So yes, C and D are after dumb hops. I thought the promise of PASWA
> >> was
> >> supposed to be that the on the wire serialization was transparent
> >
> > And it is! It's only when you want to play funny games with things
> > optimisations of signatures that you have to make special allowances
> >
> Which could be restated as: it is as long as you're prepared to take
> the hit of base64 encoding/decoding.
> Attachments is supposed to be a mechanism to avoid that :-o.
> Marc.
> --
> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
> Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 11:41:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:23 UTC