- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 20:12:53 -0800
- To: <www-tag@w3.org>
Issues: 1. System architecture document. We should describe the way the web currently works, leveraging Tim's dependency diagram. This should also help with MB's issue that he doesn't believe HTTP is well enough understood. Rational has a leading methodology for software architecture, described in http://www.rational.com/products/whitepapers/350.jsp. If we chose this methodology, I don't think we need to go into all the views. A logical view - showing dependencies (uses relationships) - plus a physical view would be a good start. I'm very open to other methodologies as well, I simply list this one as an industry standard. This document would also list open issues, such as my issues #2-#5. I suggest that we adopt a methodology from industry rather than creating our own. 2. Packaging. Packaging of XML and potentially non-xml documents into a bundle for file system storage or transmission is currently not specified in the W3C. There are related efforts, like Soap with attachments, DIME, and others that should be examined for adoption. The W3C membership has clearly indicated it has no interest in allocating resources to this work, though most acknowledge it is an important and open issue. I argue that it is because of "boringness" of packaging that the work is not a high priority, as opposed to technical rationale. 3. Profiles. It would be beneficial to describe common profiles of XML processing. Vendors could easily describe the functionality of the software, and users would be able to more easily understand and use the integrated components. Coherent conformance test suites are also easier to write and test against. There are 2 characteristics that may be worthwhile profiling: message content and application apis. Examples of these are: XML 1.0 without PIs/DTDs + Namespaces + XML Schema + XML Base (XML NG?); and DOM Level 2 + XSLT 1.0 + SAX Level 2. This clearly relates to packaging and manifests. There have been historical precedents to this notion - the J2EE brand and definition continues to be a unifying and evolving force. 4. XML Processing model. There was a processing model workshop in the summer of 2001, a fair bit of interest in proceeding with a deliverable around a processing model. The W3C has made no public announcements about any additional WGs or other activities, so the issues around xml processing still remain. 5. XML Type library. There are many calls for a type library - such as the SOAP array structure, Name/Value pair, other collections - and this is not in the XML Schema WG's charter. Again, this was tremendously useful in the Java context with the Java collections library. Cheers, Dave
Received on Monday, 17 December 2001 23:16:01 UTC