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

Re: Proposal for generic MTOM format

From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:21:46 -0700
Message-ID: <3F9427BA.7090507@oracle.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Cc: "Xml-Dist-App@W3. Org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Mark Nottingham wrote:

> Making MTOM useful as an optimised format outside the scope of SOAP 
> would require the following changes:
>   - moving MTOM section three into a separate document (suggested 
> name: "Binary-Optimized XML Packaging"), and rewriting to be 
> SOAP-agnostic.
If we separate out section 3.2 as a part of the separate document which 
is not SOAP specific, isn't that the same as XInclude with parse="binary"?
I know there isn't any agreement within the WG regd XInclude, but if we 
were to separate xbinc:Include and make it a general XML mechanism, it 
sounds like we will be doing XInclude with parse="binary". Is there a 
difference (other than the syntax) in what you were suggesting?



>   - rewriting other MTOM sections to reference it appropriately.
>   - choosing an appropriate media type for the root part (e.g., 
> "application/boxp+xml").
>   - declaring a way of encoding a processing hint into the format so 
> that the resulting XML document can be processed
> appropriately. I.e., currently, our format has a implicit post-MTOM 
> media type of "application/soap+xml"; we'd need to make this explicit. 
> (suggestion: probably in the MIME headers, possibly also in the payload).
> In other words, the work required is largely editorial. I'm happy to 
> do the work (or the preliminaries if others want to help) if we can 
> get *some* agreement in the WG that this is a good direction to go in 
> (Gudge, read this as "it won't hold us up").
> -- 
> Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
> Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
Received on Monday, 20 October 2003 14:21:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:24 UTC