- From: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 13:24:03 -0500
- To: Paul Denning <pauld@mitre.org>
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Other than some slight hesitance about whether this is consistent with our charter, I like it. Certainly the focus on tying it to the binding(s) seems right. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 Lotus Development Corp. Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Paul Denning <pauld@mitre.org> Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org 12/06/00 01:12 PM To: xml-dist-app@w3.org cc: (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/CAM/Lotus) Subject: RE: [DR008] - passing arbitrary content Categories: The statement in [1] "The methods described here treat the multipart MIME structure as essentially a part of the transfer protocol binding, i.e., on par with the transfer protocol headers as far as the SOAP message is concerned. " So, how about adding the following new DR6xx in section 3.6 to address normative XP processing: [DR6xx] Arbitrary content (to include binary data) outside the XP message shall be accomodated by the protocol binding. Paul At 11:27 AM 2000-12-05, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: >It is important to point out that there are already ways for dealing >with so-called binary data without XP having to invent anything: > > * Data can be carried as hex encoded data within the envelope > * Data can be referenced using a URI from within the envelope > >Note also that from an XP perspective there is no difference between >"true" binary data or just some data that we don't want to express as >"active" content in the XP envelope. > >One example of how to carry "binary" data is the MIME multipart/related >protocol binding that has been proposed for SOAP [1]. It supports all >data types that can be carried within a MIME body. > >The mechanisms above are sufficiently flexible to support a vast set of >scenarios. However, one might put forward the argument that neither of >these solutions are particularly efficient. The part that I would say is >"out-of-scope" is that we will not in this WG define new mechanisms >(specific to XP or otherwise) for carrying "binary" data. > >I would therefore suggest the wording: > >As expressed in R700, XP will support carrying application specific data >within the envelope and to refer to application specific data outside >the envelope. Application specific data may be encoded as binary data. >The WG will use existing mechanisms for handling binary data such as XSD >support for binary data and the use of URIs for referening data. The WG >will not define new mechanisms for handling binary data. > >Henrik > >[1] >http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/John_Barton/HTTP-A/SOAPAttachments16OCT00.htm
Received on Wednesday, 6 December 2000 13:32:26 UTC