RE: AFTF requirements, pre-2003/01/31 telcon

Chris,

I'm not asking for the serialization to be a single XML 1.0 document.
I'm just asking for the serialization we do choose to be mappable to a
single XML Infoset.

Gudge

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: 02 February 2003 14:20
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: jones@research.att.com; Sanjiva Weerawarana; 
> xml-dist-app@w3.org; xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
> Subject: RE: AFTF requirements, pre-2003/01/31 telcon
> 
> 
> 
> Gudge, 
> 
> Please help me understand what you mean by this. 
> 
> As I understand it, this requirement would seem to preclude 
> the ability to carry an XML document 
> in a message. 
> 
> Quoting from the XML Infoset spec: 
> 
> "There is exactly one document information item in the 
> information set, and all other information items are 
> accessible from the properties of the document information 
> item, either directly or indirectly through the 
> properties of other information items." 
> 
> Suppose I want to offer a Web service that performed 
> spell-checking of documents. 
> This requirement would preclude this sort of service so it 
> would seem. In fact, it would seem to 
> preclude any service that operated upon a document. 
> 
> Cheers, 
> 
> Christopher Ferris
> Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
> email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
> phone: +1 508 234 3624 
> 
> Martin Gudgin wrote on 01/31/2003 03:13:24 PM:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
> > > Sent: 31 January 2003 19:39
> > > To: Martin Gudgin; jones@research.att.com; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> > > Subject: Re: AFTF requirements, pre-2003/01/31 telcon 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com> writes:
> > > > 
> > > > We would like to add another DR for discussion. This is
> > > essentially a
> > > > rewording of my earlier infoset related requirement in
> > > concrete form.
> > > > I will still be submitting a comment on the abstract 
> feature spec.
> > > > 
> > > > DRXX - A message with all its parts, however separated 
> physically,
> > > > must be representable as a single infoset and describable 
> > > as a single
> > > > XML element in an XML schema.
> > > 
> > > Is this more a WSDL level requirement or a packaging
> > > requirement? 
> > 
> > I think you could argue that the second clause of the sentence is a 
> > WSDL requirement.
> > 
> > > If its the latter, isn't it basically saying the
> > > packaging must be a single XML element?
> > 
> > I do not see 'representable as a single infoset' as meaning 
> 'packing 
> > must be a single XML element'
> > 
> > > 
> > > Even if the serialization of each of the parts is in XML, why
> > > do you want to preclude the following model:
> > >     <soap:envelope>
> > >       <soap:body>
> > >         <the main thing goes here/>
> > >         <"attachment" 1 goes here/>
> > >         <"attachment" 2 goes here/>
> > >         ...
> > >       </soap:body>
> > >     </soap:envelope>
> > > 
> > > Or is this kind of packaging supported in your 
> requirement? (I can't
> > > tell.)
> > 
> > I believe the requirement allows the above ( the single XML element 
> > would in this case be either soap:Body or soap:Envelope ).
> > 
> > > Does it preclude a MIME (e.g., SwA) packaging?
> > 
> > I do not believe that this requirement precludes any particular 
> > packaging scheme, per se.
> > 
> > Gudge
> > 
>

Received on Monday, 3 February 2003 12:32:17 UTC