- From: Mark Jones <jones@research.att.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 22:03:21 -0500 (EST)
- To: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Chris, These aren't really my requirements at this point, but the ARTF's. I can try to shed a little light though. See the <mark> comments below. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > * The specification should aid debugging with simple tools. This has me baffled. What is it that you have in mind in the way of tools, and more specifically, are you suggesting that the specification would define said tools or that the specification would define a concrete binding that had as a design consideration that an implementation would be inherently debuggable? Further, what manner of "debugging" are we talking about here? <mark>John Barton suggested this one and his reply to your note captures his intention.</mark> > > R15. The specification should not unecessarily preclude convenient > description by languages such as WSDL. Hmmm... Why wouldn't the specification provide a normative WSDL binding extension mechanism? Afterall, what authority is better suited to define the extension than that which specifies the concrete binding itself? Yes, I realize this is the XMLP WG and not the WSDL WG, but the WSDL WG is not chartered with the specification of all WSDL extensions, just the WSDL core syntax, processing model, extension points and framework. It seems to me that not defining the WSDL binding extension for this feature would be like the XMLP defering a schema definition of SOAP to the XML Schema WG. Clearly, we would not do that, why would we defer the definition of the WSDL? <mark>Jean-Jacques's reply touched on some of this. Noah suggested the somewhat convoluted wording to try to convey the sense that WSDL is still evolving and that it may need to stretch a bit also. (We won't necessarily need the flexibility, but this gives us a litle wiggle room.) </mark> > > DR3. The specification must admit a reasonably time-efficient means of > identifying parts. I think that rather than "identifying" this is intended to refer to resolving or dereferencing, no? If not, then I guess I don't understand the requirement's indended interpretation. <mark> "identifying" in this sense is more tied to finding parts in the packaging -- byte lengths, boundary strings, etc.</mark> > > DR5. The representation must efficiently support the addition and > deletion of parts. Hmmm... While it is clear that an implementation of the specification would likely carry this requirement, it is less than clear that the requirement is applicable to the specification itself. Further, one would imagine that by this statement, it would be the intended to cover the insertion or in-line deletion of parts, or had you only appending and truncation in mind? Again, it isn't clear that this requirement, as written is either testable of a specification or relevant for a specification that is not intended to be implementation-specific. <mark> The point here was to make the spec relatively friendly to intermediaries that might need to modify the attachment bundle in straightforward ways. (roughly resonant with the fact that insertions and deletions of headers in a SOAP envelope are pretty straightforward syntactically, for example). </mark> > > DR13. The specification must provide support for large parts. And small ones as well one would imagine. How large? Arbitrarily large? Just "pretty big", really, really large" or "incomprehensibly large"? :) What about parts who's size is not known at the time that the serialization is begun? <mark>These points have been discussed briefly. This one needs more work. </mark> > > Reference to Parts > > DR6. The specification must permit parts to be identified by URIs. Hmmm... I think that the specification should require that parts be identified by URI, but that they may be identified using other means as well. Of course, they could be identified by relative URI, not just absolute URI. <mark> We can consider your wording instead. </mark> > > 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] Not sure I follow this... <mark>There was some sentiment for flexibility in part ordering -- for example, having a text part preceeding even the SOAP message.</mark> > DR12. The SOAP message part should be readily locatable/indentifiable. Should it not be the case that ALL parts be identified, identifiable? What would make the SOAP part unique in this regard? <mark> We wanted to make sure if there were multiple SOAP message parts that we could identify which one was the primary part and which were attachments. This may be an issue if order were arbitrary, for example.</mark> > > DR16. The part identifier scheme to be detremined by sending > application. "scheme" seems to imply "URI", but my guess is that it does not. Again, I would strongly recommend that parts be identified by URI (relative or absolute). <mark>URI is what I have in mind.</mark> Thanks for the comments. --mark _____________________ 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
Received on Monday, 20 January 2003 22:03:53 UTC