- From: David Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:18:17 -0800
- To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
----- Forwarded by David Fallside/Santa Teresa/IBM on 03/21/2002 01:17 PM ----- |---------+----------------------------------> | | "Jean-Jacques Moreau" | | | <moreau_jean_jacques@ho| | | tmail.com> | | | Sent by: | | | w3c-xml-protocol-wg-req| | | uest@w3.org | | | | | | | | | 02/25/2002 08:55 AM | | | | |---------+----------------------------------> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: <w3c-xml-protocol-wg@w3.org> | | cc: | | Subject: Issue 61: external payload reference/S+A | | | | | >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| 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, 2002. 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 specification. 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] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2002Jan/0118.html [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2002Feb/0007.html
Received on Thursday, 21 March 2002 16:21:24 UTC