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

RE: Concrete packaging spec

From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 17:20:29 -0700
Message-ID: <DDE1793D7266AD488BB4F5E8D38EACB8FD6BF8@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
To: "Eliezer Birinbom" <Eliezerb@matrix.co.il>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

> From: Eliezer Birinbom [mailto:Eliezerb@matrix.co.il]
> 
> This looks great. Finally something to hold on to.
> Do you have any idea when will this proposal move forward ?

The W3C XML Protocol working group has decided to make this the basis
for their work on attachments and has begun discussing issues.

> I am currently in the begging of the process of defining the standards
for
> an integration project for one of our customers.
> The general giudeline for my work is to use the GXA specs, and the
reason
> I feel we might need something like WS-Attachments is for passing
small,
> non XML, text data in the body of the SOAP message.

If you only have small quantities of non-XML data, you should consider
base64 encoding the data and including it directly in the SOAP Envelope;
any inefficiencies are minimized with small data, and base64 data has
the benefit of being fully standard and supported now.

> The people form Microsoft in Israel are urging me to implement WS-
> Attachment. They are saying that the expiry date is irrelevant, and
that
> WS-Attachments is a standard that is already implemented by Microsoft
and
> IBM.

Judging by the SOAP Builders tests, there are a number of interoperable
WS-Attachment implementations; however, I do not know of any plans to
standardize it.

> From: Jeffrey Schlimmer [mailto:jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com]
> 
> 	You may wish to review a recent proposal to the W3C XML Protocol
WG:
> 
> 	http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/jeffsch/paswa/paswa61.html
Received on Thursday, 22 May 2003 20:21:16 GMT

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