- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 14:20:01 -0500
- To: dorchard@bea.com
- Cc: andrewl@microsoft.com, jacek@systinet.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org
David Orchard writes: >> I don't want to deal with package scoped references in SOAP, Neither do I. I want to deal with them in the specifications for transport bindings, and features implemented by transport bindings. That's where you know whether you're using S+A (Mime), XML Packaging, or something else. All I'm advocating is that we say something like: "the specification for a binding SHOULD indicate the means used to reference attachments, if any, carried with a message (as distinct from other Web resources.)" >> I'd rather deal with them in the packaging work. If XML packaging comes up with something good, that's fine, and I hope that bindings will use it where appropriate. I think it's much too limiting to assume that all bindings will use any one such mechanism. Even for the envelope, we allow arbitrary representations of the Infoset on the wire. Many of the attachments will not even be XML (binary XRays seems to be the cannonical counterexample). I'm not sure that the XML Packaging effort would undertake to deal with such non-XML resource, much less come up with a solution that we could mandate as the solution for use in all cases. We should let the implementors of particular transport bindings decide how to carry attachments. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 Lotus Development Corp. Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2001 17:17:45 UTC