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

Re: Proposal for generic MTOM format

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:11:49 -0400
To: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>, "Xml-Dist-App@W3. Org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFBF1040E6.59F32E35-ON85256DC5.0068F41B@lotus.com>

Anish Karamarkar writes:

>> 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 don't think so.  My impression is that an XInclude can reference any web 
resource, which is a quite weak contract packaging wise.  MTOM, as I 
understand it, says:  xbinc:Include must be replaced with the resource 
representation >>in the multipart MIME  stream in which the reference 
occurs<<.   In other words, I see the MTOM serialization (though not 
necessarily all embodiments of the abstract MTOM feature) as specifically 
providing for data packaged together in a single stream.  Indeed, I would 
argue that if we used generalized include in the MTOM serialization, it 
should be limited to representations carried in that serialization.  It is 
completely unacceptable to have to open a web connection to get these 
message parts. 

Perhaps this is a reason not to use generalized XInclude in MTOM?  In 
other words, if you really mean Web-scale XInclude, with the possible need 
to open external connections, use generalized XInclude (if it gets to 
Rec.)  For local-only include use xbinc:Include?  I can see this either 
way, but I think its essential that we call out separately the case where 
messages are self-contained.  Thanks!


Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Received on Monday, 20 October 2003 15:12:34 UTC

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