W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlp-comments@w3.org > June 2004

WS-Description WG's LC comments on XMLP specs

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.at>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:23:44 +0200
To: XMLP Comments <xmlp-comments@w3.org>
Cc: WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1088162624.8518.30.camel@Kalb>

Dear XMLP WG, 

the WS-Description WG has reviewed the Last Call drafts of XOP, MTOM and
Resource Representation Header specs and has two comments.

1) the Resource Representation header [1] is not a SOAP module and
therefore does not have a formal name by which it can be referred (other
than the element qname). We feel that making the header into a full
module with its identification URI will help us describe applications
that use it.

2) we have discussed the ednote in section 4.3.1 in MTOM [2] on bindings
that will reject some infosets and even though it doesn't affect our
ability to describe SOAP services using MTOM, there was significant
sentiment that an escaping mechanism for XOP elements be added in XOP or
MTOM. 

It was noted that such escaping mechanism would only be used by nodes
that cannot otherwise guarantee that xop:Include isn't present in their
SOAP infosets; and such nodes, in order to be conformant, would have to
scan the infosets for the presence of xop:Include elements before using
MTOM. We don't think that performing the escaping would be a significant
(show-stopping) addition to the overhead of the scan.

On behalf of the WS-Description WG,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Ph.D. student researcher
                   Digital Enterprise Research Institute, Innsbruck
                   http://www.deri.org/


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-soap12-rep-20040608/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-soap12-mtom-20040608/#httpof-sending
Received on Friday, 25 June 2004 07:23:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:42:28 GMT