W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > March 2002

REPOSTED: Re: Issue 61: external payload reference/S+A

From: David Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:19:08 -0800
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF59C1536C.9A963F8D-ON88256B83.007515B5@boulder.ibm.com>
----- Forwarded by David Fallside/Santa Teresa/IBM on 03/21/2002 01:18 PM
|         |           Jacek Kopecky          |
|         |           <jacek@systinet.com>   |
|         |           Sent by:               |
|         |           w3c-xml-protocol-wg-req|
|         |           uest@w3.org            |
|         |                                  |
|         |                                  |
|         |           03/04/2002 06:46 AM    |
|         |                                  |
  |                                                                                                                           |
  |       To:       Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau_jean_jacques@hotmail.com>                                                     |
  |       cc:       <w3c-xml-protocol-wg@w3.org>                                                                              |
  |       Subject:  Re: Issue 61: external payload reference/S+A                                                              |
  |                                                                                                                           |
  |                                                                                                                           |

 I agree with your analysis. In light of the charter of the newly
created WS Architecture working group it seems that it is not us
who should suggest such amendments to our charter. On the other
hand, support for attachments is very important in even today's
web services.
 As SOAP+Attachments spec has shown us, attachments can be built
on top of SOAP with virtually no direct support from SOAP. I
believe even the changes we've made in 1.2 (most importantly
changing href attribute - anyURI to ref attribute - IDREF) do not
affect the ability of 3rd parties to add attachments support to
SOAP 1.2, the changes only affect details of the support.
 If asked, I'll gladly elaborate on how I see SOAP Attachments
rewritten to work with SOAP 1.2.
 So I see a fourth option:
 d) do nothing, leave this to WS-Architecture.
 The "attachments" feature you mention in your options b and c
can be either specified by the 3rd parties or it can be part of
our final spec. I'll support addition of this feature to our spec
if a suitable draft of the feature's text is proposed.
 So to summarize, I propose we choose either d) or b), depending
on whether somebody comes up with text for b). 8-)
 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)

On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:

 > Issue 61[1] concerns the inability for SOAP to carry and reference
payloads outsite the envelope and to carry non-XML formatted information.
 > During the October the 17th, 2001 teleconference[2], it was suggested to
add to the specification a non-normative, 'for-instance', reference to
SOAP+Attachment. This was deemed insufficient by some parties. During the
November the 7th, 2001 teleconference[3], it was suggested to write a new
charter for the next revision of the XMLP WG that includes an 'Attachments'
section. The text[4] for this new section was received on January the 31st,
 > Although this text was received positively (see e.g. [5]), it has not
been officially approved, and so it is still unclear whether the next
revision for SOAP will provide a mechanism, or mechanisms, to carry payload
outside the envelope and/or non-XML information.
 > The following options are available:
 >   a) Adopt the proposed charter amendment and wait for the next version
of SOAP to fully support attachments.
 >   b) Introduce today an abstract attachment 'binding feature', but defer
'implementation' of this feature to other specifications/notes, such as,
for example SOAP+Attachment or DIME.
 >   c) Introduce both an abstract attachment feature and its concrete
 > Give our schedule, option c) is probably ouf of scope.
 > Jean-Jacques.
 > [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x61
 > [2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/17-minutes.html
 > [3] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/11/07-pminutes.html
 > [4]
 > [5]
Received on Thursday, 21 March 2002 16:21:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:11:48 UTC