W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2004

Re: Language for resolving issue 440

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 20:40:56 -0500
To: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Cc: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFB57F6305.1F2EDF1B-ON85256E1D.0008F784@lotus.com>

Marc Hadley asks:

>> I don't recall - do we already have text that 
>> captures the other part of the resolution, 
>> namely that MTOM doesn't preclude additional 
>> parts in the package not reference via 
>> miffy:Include ?

Did we conclude that?  More specifically, did we conclude that for Miffy 
or for the HTTP binding as well?  Not surprisingly, I'm fairly strongly 
opposed to allowing variability in the content sent by the HTTP binding. 
That said, I may just be repressing memories of a decision that went 
counter to my preferences.

I've just read the review copies of the specs, and regardless of what our 
issue resolutions say (and they should be clear), the current miffy text 
does allow for separate parts.  The HTTP binding could probably be read 
either way, since it says to make a part for each optimized piece, but 
doesn't really say whether that means >only< for each optimized piece.  I 
think we should remind ourselves what the resolution is on the http 
binding, and clarify the MTOM document either way.  I think I can live 
with the variability in Miffy/XOP.

Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Received on Thursday, 15 January 2004 20:45:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:25 UTC