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: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 09:38:54 -0500
To: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF920835CC.8B85252F-ON85256E25.00032DD6@lotus.com>

Marc Hadley responds:

> > Did we conclude that?
> 
> Yes, we did.
> 
> >   More specifically, did we conclude that for Miffy
> > or for the HTTP binding as well?

> For both.

OK, I guess I was indeed repressing a decision that I don't entirely love. 
 Thanks for the clarification.

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Sent by: Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM
01/18/2004 09:53 PM

 
        To:     noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
        cc:     Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
        Subject:        Re: Language for resolving issue 440


On Jan 15, 2004, at 8:40 PM, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:

> 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?

Yes, we did.

>   More specifically, did we conclude that for Miffy
> or for the HTTP binding as well?

For both. The variability we introduced between XOP and MTOM was 
related to the cardinality of inclusions: we concluded that in XOP 
there could be multiple inclusions of the same binary part but that the 
HTTP binding would restrict it to a single inclusion of any binary 
part. Both HTTP binding/MTOM and XOP would allow unreferenced 
attachments but they are outside the SOAP processing model.

Marc.

>  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
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
---
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
Web Products, Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Monday, 26 January 2004 09:47:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 22:28:13 UTC