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

Re: Proposal for generic MTOM format

From: John J. Barton <John_Barton@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:29:21 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Cc: "Xml-Dist-App@W3. Org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>


   Whether the thing is called a "specification" or an "application", we 
need a thing
that nails down whether or not the resources can be served out of the message.
If my box must support opening new sockets and downloading content to process
the message, I need to know that when we evaluate its feasibility, not 
shortly after
someone tries sending it a message.  So I agree that the ability to mix 
and online URLs would be a great thing to have at some level, we also need 
a level
that says "only in-message URLs" inside.


At 12:30 PM 10/20/2003 -0700, Mark Nottingham wrote:

>I can understand your concerns here as a matter of practice, but I wonder 
>why it's necessary to embody them in the specification. There may be cases 
>where getting things from the network are desirable, and I don't see any 
>reason to preclude their use (whether or not that's a good idea for a 
>particular application is another story, of course).
>On Monday, October 20, 2003, at 12:11  PM, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
>>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
>John J. Barton          email:  John_Barton@hpl.hp.com
>MS 1U-17  Hewlett-Packard Labs
>1501 Page Mill Road              phone: (650)-236-2888
>Palo Alto CA  94304-1126         FAX:   (650)-857-5100
Received on Monday, 20 October 2003 20:29:23 UTC

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