- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 00:35:22 +0600
- To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
"John J. Barton" <John_Barton@HPL.HP.COM> writes: > > I am hoping that someone will reinterpret this discussion for me. > I just cannot understand how attachments need work along these > lines. By their very nature "attachments" attach to or are secondary > to a center or primary entity, in this case the SOAP envelope. The > SOAP XML refers to these attachments and determines their processing. > That's it. The SOAP processing model is the processing model. > What is broken here that needs to be fixed? > > Moreover it seems that some of this discussion concerns the potential > for enabling attachment packaging transformation. That is, by making > some identification between a concrete packaging specification and > an abstract data model (infoset), the big gain is a straight-forward model > for converting one package type into another. That is we could convert > a Base64 package into a SwA or DIME package or vice versa. Is that > what the infoset stuff would allow? If so, then why is that desirable? The > central problem to be solved by the AFTF is standardization of the > packaging scheme. Introducing transformations means one has to > develop content negotiation to interoperate: is that what you want? > > Sorry if my questions are too far behind the discussion. +1 to your questions; I'm having trouble in exactly the same way. Sanjiva.
Received on Thursday, 6 February 2003 13:38:14 UTC