- From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:46:07 -0500
- To: Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: jones@research.att.com, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org, xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF0E5715EC.EFD5C1AB-ON85256CBF.007C0D57-85256CBF.007D124C@us.ibm.com>
+1 Christopher Ferris Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com phone: +1 508 234 3624 xml-dist-app-request@w3.org wrote on 01/31/2003 04:52:35 PM: > > "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. > > I have a concern with this proposed requirement. First of all, I think it > is really proposing a change to the SOAP 1.2 Attachment Feature WD [1], > and not directly to the implementations for which we are gathering > requirements. [1] is fairly clear that attachments are to be named with > URIs and accessed using the normal mechanisms of the web (though the > actual resolution of the URIs, such as CID:, is presumably provided by the > concrete embodiment of the feature in DIME, S+A or whatever.) > > Furthermore, I prefer the status quo in [1]. I think the sorts of > information we are trying to carry are best typed with MIME types; I > believe that the URIs that refer to those attachments fit comfortably into > the Envelope infoset (as xsd:anyURI elements and/or attributes), but that > the resource representations themselves do not. I want to be able to be > able to say: "this part is of type image/gif". Indeed, I would propose > (I think I did on one of our telcons): > > DRZZ: It must be possible to associate a MIME type with any or all of the > parts in a message. > > This too, by the way, should perhaps be reflected more clearly in [1], in > addition to being reflected in the requirements we are developing for > concrete implementations. > > To restate the position I've stated before: > > I think we have a pretty good data model for attachments, and it's the Web > model not an XML infoset. The XML Infoset is the SOAP envelope. It can, > using the usual mechanisms of the Web, make references to resources using > URIs. Some of those resources (or representations of them) will be > physically packaged with the message, and those we call attachments. In > the cases of interest (as opposed to mailto: URIs), the resources should > be capable of providing MIME-typed representations of themselves using the > normal mechanisms of the Web. So, when the URIs are http: URIs, the > resources are (probably) not thought of as attachments and are retrieved > using the normal mechanisms of http:. Each particular packaging scheme, > as described in [1], defines the means by which it uses some particular > set of URIs for retrieval of representations of attachments. > > That's it. I think it's a reasonable model. I think WSDL can model it. > Indeed, I think WSDL needs sooner or later to support this model for > non-attachment data. Applying it to attachments is just more metadata, I > think (this URI will refer to a resource that travels with the message, > this one won't, and this third one could be either way.) > > I really haven't seen either a motivation or an architecturally strong > design for including image/gif data in an XML Infoset. Actually, let me > soften that. I think the data model given 2 paras above is the right one > for users. If someone wants to do a second packaging that uses the XML > Schema hexBinary or base64Binary and that puts the parts in SOAP headers, > expanded to character form, I think that might be worth considering. It's > not a solution, IMO, to the requirement that we carry binary as binary, > which is what we're supposed to do here. > > I am very much opposed to any proposal that directly or indirectly creates > a binary data model in the Infoset at this time. I think it's a very > subtle thing to get right, it needs to be very carefully lined up with at > least the query data model, it breaks a lot of the things we hold dear > about XML as a text standard, and I certainly don't think it's something > we should back into in the course of doing attachments. > > Noah > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-af-20020814/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 > IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 > One Rogers Street > Cambridge, MA 02142 > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >
Received on Friday, 31 January 2003 17:46:47 UTC