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

RE: MTOM/XOP implementations/prototypes and use cases?

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 09:17:58 -0700
Message-ID: <DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B63380257ADED@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Aleksander Slominski" <aslom@cs.indiana.edu>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Per the W3C process the implementation stage is Candidate Recommendation
( 2 stages on from where the specs are currently ). A spec cannot
successfully progress from Candidate Recommendation without
demonstration of interoperable implementations. So before we're done,
there will be implementations that interoperate. 

BTW, the latest editors drafts of XOP/MTOM no longer have any dependency
on XML Query. Hence the next public versions of the documents will also
not have that dependancy.

Regards

Martin Gudgin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Aleksander Slominski
> Sent: 07 June 2004 17:09
> To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: MTOM/XOP implementations/prototypes and use cases?
> 
> 
> hi,
> 
> are there available any (open source?) 
> implementations/prototypes  that 
> validate proposed spec practicality (casual googling did not 
> find any)?
> 
> isnt it important to follow IETF model for more than one proof of 
> concept implementation or is it too early at this stage?
> 
> what is the current timeline for XOP/MTOM?
> 
> did anybody try to set some use case and test interoperability?
> 
> it seems that since conception of initial idea the 
> description becomes 
> more and more formal/complex/harder to read (like dependency on XML 
> Query model which depends on PSVI from XML Schemas ...).
> 
> thanks,
> 
> alek
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 7 June 2004 12:18:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:18 GMT