- From: Kevin Mitchell <kevin.mitchell@xmls.com>
- Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 15:38:38 GMT
- To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Current wording of DR040... DR040 It is a requirement that binary data is supported. Issue (i.040.01): Do we need to support explicit binary data (or just base64 encoding is fine). Absolute NO on one side, yes on other side. (open for discussion) We should get requirements for binary binding. Issue (i.040.02): Duplicate (Does support mean must specify one or more mechanisms?. Lots of discussion of whether this is needed it not).Is this is a part of the core or not? The charter says that we should make this a low-level priority. It is not clear that we should actually do this. It is not fair to say that we have nailed it simply because of demonstrating that it can be done on top. Glossary: what is binary and what is the use cases. What are the ways that SOAP can do it? Proposal... Given that binary data support is out of scope, but there is room to examine such issues if there is interest and time, I propose that DR040 be reworded as a WG statement, and not as an explicit requirement. Here is a proposed rewording: "In keeping with the spirit of a minimalist design as specified in the XML Protocol Working Group Charter, the XML Protocol Working Group does not have specific requirements concerning binary data support. However, the XML Protocol Working Group recognizes that some applications of the XML Protocol will require the exchange of binary data such as JPEG and PNG. To facilitate such implementations, the XML Protocol Working Group may illustrate how such exchanges may be accomplished in a non-normative section of the XML Protocol specification. These illustrations will leverage the work already done in this area by the ebXML and RosettaNet groups."
Received on Monday, 4 December 2000 10:38:16 UTC