RE: Indicating element nodes that must be optimized with XOP

Hi Hugo,

> Maybe there is something I'm missing about case 1: 
> can certain base64 blobs not be be serialized in 
> canonical lexical form?

I had the same question and hit the trail. I bumped into XMLP Issue 432 [1]
& its resolution [2].

"I believe we need to open an MTOM issue, as transmission of the "binary"
form of a base64binary info item is not in general sufficient to
reconstruct its lexical form.  Dsigs could break, etc".

Reconstructing, that is the reason why?

[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues#x432
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2003Aug/0012.html

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Hugo Haas
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 1:23 AM
To: Ugo Corda
Cc: Herve Ruellan; www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: Re: Indicating element nodes that must be optimized with XOP


Hi Ugo.

* Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> [2004-06-02 09:35-0700]
> I assume your response only applies to case 2. For case 1, it would be
> unreasonable for the service provider to expect the element to be
> optimized.

Maybe there is something I'm missing about case 1: can certain base64
blobs not be be serialized in canonical lexical form?

I had assumed that this limitation in XOP was only applying to
intermediaries: they may receive an element which is not in canonical
lexical representation; if their job was for example to XOP-optimize
the SOAP message, then they would not be able to.

However, for the message originator, I thought that it always had the
choice and therefore it was not a problem. If I am designing my
application and I have to use XOP, then I should be able to do so. If
I can't for some reason, then I should not use a service that requires
XOP-optimization of some things.

Am I missing something?

Regards,

Hugo

-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/

Received on Thursday, 3 June 2004 10:59:06 UTC