- From: Dick Brooks <dick@8760.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 21:50:58 -0600
- To: "David E. Cleary" <davec@progress.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
David Cleary wrote: > Not necessarily. I'm sure you are familiar with the Soap with Attachments > paper Henrik and others authored. The URI reference can refer to > other MIME > parts in the document directly, and will probably be the way it is used > mostly. I agree, if XP URI references are constrained to "local only" then none of the issues I raised will exist. Is it the groups consensus to constrain URI's to local references only? If not then we will need to deal with the issues I listed. > XML Schemas does not suffer from this limitation, so encoding an XML > document for use within an XP PDU is not required. I agree, however SOAP has restrictions against certain "legal" XML content from appearing in a SOAP message, ref: section 3 of SOAP spec states: "A SOAP message MUST NOT contain a Document Type Declaration. A SOAP message MUST NOT contain Processing Instructions. [7]" This means any XML document containing PI's or DOCTYPE's must be "scrubbed" (or base64 encoded) before being placed in a SOAP:Body. Scrubbing could cause a problem for "signed data". > requires a change to XML itself. I use the term indirect to mean > referencing > binary data contained outside of the XP envelope, and feel that > without this > functionality, I can not support XP moving forward. So are we agreeing? We are in agreement. I believe the ebXML approach for carrying binary and "complete XML" payloads could easily integrate with SOAP/XP and this provides the functionality many people are requesting. Dick Brooks Group 8760 110 12th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 dick@8760.com 205-250-8053 Fax: 205-250-8057 http://www.8760.com/ InsideAgent - Empowering e-commerce solutions
Received on Wednesday, 6 December 2000 22:54:46 UTC