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

Re: Sharing MTOM parts for identical leaf nodes

From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 12:58:41 -0400
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-id: <2DB5E08A-F29E-11D7-95F4-0003937568DC@sun.com>

I raised similar/related issues back in April[1] but I don't think they  
ever made it onto our issues list. There was some discussion at [2,3].

Marc.

[1] http://www.w3.org/mid/A7317548-70FF-11D7-84F2-0003937568DC@sun.com
[2] http://www.w3.org/mid/E0A0949A-8172-11D7-9596-0003937568DC@sun.com
[3]  
http://www.w3.org/mid/7C083876C492EB4BAAF6B3AE0732970E0B7401EB@red-msg- 
08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com

On Friday, Sep 26, 2003, at 20:31 US/Eastern,  
noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> Jacek and I had some private discussion of this over the summer, but  
> I'm
> not sure whether it ever resulted in any public consideration by the  
> WG:
>
> It occurs to me that in certain use cases the identical large binary  
> might
> logically serve as content to multiple leaf nodes.  This could in  
> principle
> be done by reference to headers, but that changes the vocabularies and  
> is
> not in all cases natural.  I wonder whether we should allow a smart  
> MTOM
> implementation to point multiple xbinc:Includes to the same mime part  
> (I.e.
> use the same URI)?  Seems like a win to me, and I can quite easily  
> imagine
> implementations that would know from the construction of the DOM or  
> similar
> structure that the content was identical.
>
> In any case, I think we should open an issue to make clear what the  
> rule
> is, even if we just clarify that you must not link a given mtom part  
> from
> more than (or perhaps less than?) a single xbinc:Include.  My current
> leaning would be to allow flexibility in both directions.  Multiple
> xbinc:Includes should be able to ref the same content, and it should be
> possible to carry content that is not referenced at all (e.g. to avoid  
> the
> need for reference counting, or to maintain certain kinds of  
> signatures,
> even if a header with a reference is removed.)  That said, I wouldn't
> expect many implementations to avail themselves of the permission to  
> send
> large useless content,  but I think the sharing makes sense.
>
> New issue?
>
> Thanks.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
--
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Monday, 29 September 2003 12:58:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:15 GMT