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

RE: PASWA, Include and Protocol Bindings

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 08:24:08 -0700
Message-ID: <7C083876C492EB4BAAF6B3AE0732970E0B740205@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Mark Nottingham" <mark.nottingham@bea.com>, "Marc Hadley" <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Cc: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Agreed. We're talking about a specific scenario here which involves a
non-PASWA aware node. 

WRT disg we could define a C14N algorithm that ALWAYS works on the value
space ( raw octets ) or one that ALWAYS works on the lexical space (
base64 chars as UTF-8 ). The former will cause extra work for non-PASWA
nodes, the latter will cause extra work for PASWA nodes. 

C'est la vie!

Gudge

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mark.nottingham@bea.com] 
> Sent: 09 May 2003 16:40
> To: Marc Hadley
> Cc: Martin Gudgin; noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: PASWA, Include and Protocol Bindings
> 
> 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).
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> ----- 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>; <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> 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
> like
> > > 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 Wednesday, 14 May 2003 11:24:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:14 GMT