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

Re: Comments on SOAP 1.2 Attachment Feature

From: John J. Barton <John_Barton@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 11:18:50 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org

As you think through Noah's implementation outline, you might consider
the advantages of a solution that includes relative URIs.  Specifically, the
software that constructs content no longer needs an API to beg a URI
from the packager.  Moreover, ROM content can be packaged.  These
advantages lead us to deal with relative URI in detail in
SOAP Messages with Attachments[1].
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP-attachments

At 03:49 PM 9/4/2002 -0400, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:

>Chris' analysis deserves a more detailed reply than I can manage just now.
>   I agree that there's merit in much of it, but I'm not sure I agree with
>Anyway, the purpose of this note is specifically to signal my hesitancy to
>mandate support for any particular URI scheme such as CID.  I think we've
>done the right thing to leave it to the binding, because I think the
>natural URI scheme to use will depend strongly on the means used to move
>the attachments from sender to receiver.    So, how does this work in
>practice?  We don't specify node implementations, of course, but I would
>expect a typical implementation would be:
>* Software preparing a message calls some API that says:  associate this
>byte stream as a new part with the message, and return to me a URI that
>can be used in the message to reference this part.   Under the covers, the
>software determines the packaging scheme to be used, and conjures up an
>appropriate URI.
>* Node uses those URIs when constructing references from the envelope,
>from other parts etc.
>* Message is sent
>* Receiving application encounters URIs, probably initially in the
>envelope, but maybe in other parts as processing proceeds.  Possible
>implementation is that SOAP software (with knowledge of the binding)
>offers a service that returns the byte stream for the part when presented
>with a URI.
>So, I think what we have is both practical and appropriate.
>Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
>IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
>One Rogers Street
>Cambridge, MA 02142
>Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
>Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
>09/04/2002 02:51 PM
>         To:     xml-dist-app@w3.org
>         cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
>         Subject:        Comments on SOAP 1.2 Attachment Feature
>Overall I think it looks OK though I share many of the concerns raised
>by Chris Ferris[1].
>On the editorial front I would like to recommend redressing the balance
>between MIME and DIME by adding a reference to the SOAP with
>Attachments note[1] rather than just MIME itself. I would also
>recommend that the bibliography entries for WS-Attachments, WS-Security
>and SOAP with Attachments be moved to a new section; "Non-normative
>References" in line with approach taken for parts 1 and 2 of the spec.
>On the technical front I wonder whether the spec should require/specify
>support for at least the CID[3] referencing scheme, rather than punting
>this completely to the packaging spec specification. This wouldn't
>preclude a packaging spec introducing additional referencing schemes
>but would provide at least a minimum of functionality common to all
>packaging specs.
>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Jul/0233.html
>[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP-attachments
>[3] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2111.txt
>Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
>XML Technology Center, Sun Microsystems.

John J. Barton          email:  John_Barton@hpl.hp.com
MS 1U-17  Hewlett-Packard Labs
1501 Page Mill Road              phone: (650)-236-2888
Palo Alto CA  94304-1126         FAX:   (650)-857-5100
Received on Monday, 9 September 2002 14:18:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:11:52 UTC