- 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