- From: Henry Lowe <hlowe@omg.org>
- Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 18:17:40 -0500
- To: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
- Cc: Paul Denning <pauld@mitre.org>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
I would suggest this is not such a good idea as, for other than HTTP, there won't be a standardized binding which will lead to non-interoperability for anything other than HTTP. Henry ------------------------------- At 01:24 PM 12/06/2000 -0500, Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com wrote: >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 Thursday, 7 December 2000 18:17:59 UTC