- From: Mark Jones <jones@research.att.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 12:10:13 -0500 (EST)
- To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Here is another list of requirements following the ARTF (Attachment
Requirements Task Force) telcon held from 11am-noon EST on Jan. 15,
2003. A couple of former draft requirements have been moved forward
to "Considerations" instead. Those requirements marked "DR" have not
yet been discussed in detail by the task force; those requirements
marked "R" have achieved consensus within the task force.
Mark A. Jones
AT&T Labs -- Strategic Standards Division
Shannon Laboratory
Room 2A02
180 Park Ave.
Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
email: jones@research.att.com
phone: (973) 360-8326
fax: (973) 236-6453
================================================================
Concrete Attachment Feature Requirements
----------------------------------------
Considerations
* The specification should not invent a packaging scheme.
* The specification should aid debugging with simple tools.
General Requirements
R8. The specification must describe its relationship to the
properties defined in Table 1 (att:SOAPMessage and
att:SecondaryPartBag) in the SOAP 1.2 Attachment Feature
specification.
R9. The specification must describe its points of extensibility.
R15. The specification should not unecessarily preclude convenient
description by languages such as WSDL.
DR17. The specification must work with the SOAP 1.2 HTTP binding and
with as many other bindings as possible.
Representation
DR1. The specification must define a means to carry multiple data parts.
DR2. The specification must define a means for parts to carry
arbitrary data, including non-XML data (e.g., binary data and XML
fragments).
DR3. The specification must admit a reasonably time-efficient means of
identifying parts.
DR4. The specification must use a reasonably space-efficient
representation.
DR5. The representation must efficiently support the addition and
deletion of parts.
DR13. The specification must provide support for large parts.
Reference to Parts
DR6. The specification must permit parts to be identified by URIs.
DR7. The URI identification scheme must be robust under the addition
and deletion of parts -- i.e., it must not require that URIs to
other parts be altered, it must be relatively easy to avoid URI
conflicts, etc.
DR11. (a) The specification should permit an initial human readable
part.
(b) The specification should not specify a particular ordering
of parts.
[still noodling on which version to prefer]
DR12. The SOAP message part should be readily locatable/indentifiable.
DR16. The part identifier scheme to be detremined by sending
application.
Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2003 12:10:44 UTC