- From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:46:39 -0500
- To: "John J. Barton" <John_Barton@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, jones@research.att.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org, xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
On Monday, Jan 20, 2003, at 12:23 US/Eastern, John J. Barton wrote: > > Considerations > > > > * The specification should not invent a packaging scheme. > > Perhaps I don't quite understand the meaning of "packaging scheme" but > the way I > interpret this is "the ARTF is going to pick between SwA and DIME", > which isn't > truly possible since neither are sound enough. Perhaps you mean > The specification should resemble existing packaging schemes. > ? > I think there's a (perhaps not clearly made) distinction between packaging scheme and attachment specification. My take on 'not invent a packaging scheme' is that the attachment specification will use an existing technology like MIME or DIME or ZIP (or tar or jar or ...) as the underlying packaging technology rather than inventing everything from the ground up. The attachment specification would describe how to use the underlying packaging scheme for packaging SOAP messages and attachments. Regards, Marc. -- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com> Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Tuesday, 21 January 2003 10:46:17 UTC