- From: Oisin Hurley <ohurley@iona.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 19:58:12 -0000
- To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <frystyk@microsoft.com>, "Noah Mendelsohn" <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>, "Paul Denning" <pauld@mitre.org>
- Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> [DR6xx] Arbitrary content (to include binary data) outside the > XP message shall be accommodated by the protocol binding or in > a manner completely independent of that XP message. Um, I'm still trying to make out why 'Arbitrary content' is different from 'application specific content' - they are both arbitrary and scope free to my mind. If you agree, then then let me remind you of the text of R700a: "The XP specification must define a mechanism or mechanisms that allow applications to submit application-specific content or information for delivery by XP. In forming the standard for the mechanisms, the XP specification may consider support for: - carrying application specific payloads inside the XP envelope, - referring to application specific payloads outside the XP envelope, - carrying nested XP envelopes as application specific data within the XP envelope, - referring to XP envelopes as application specific data outside the XP envelope" especially I'd like to draw your attention to bullet point number two. Also, I'm not sure I agree with tying the extension mechanism to the protocol, that doesn't feel right at all. Maybe you mean that there should be a way to map the extension mechanism to different wire representations, depending on the transport protocol - that I could go for. Example, an XP message might travel via HTTP and include an ftp hyperlink to the extension data (this is a valid use case). If this XP message then goes through an intermediary that decides to change the protocol to SMTP, then the extension data could be fetched and mapped to a MIME attachment. I'm saying the extension mechanism that we standardize is the same in both cases, just the mapping to the transport protocols is different. The intermediary will have to understand that it must get the extension data to pass it on, but because it implicitly supports the HTTP mapping then it should know how to do so. In summary, I think that the solution to this requirement requires more thought rather than the requirement itself. cheers --oh -- ohurley at iona dot com +353 1 637 2639
Received on Wednesday, 6 December 2000 14:59:02 UTC