- From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:36:34 -0800
- To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> > -----Original Message----- > From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com] > Sent: 11 March 2003 14:56 > To: xml-dist-app@w3.org > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: rayw@netscape.com [mailto:rayw@netscape.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 8:49 AM > > To: eugene@datapower.com > > Cc: 'John J. Barton'; xml-dist-app@w3.org > > Subject: Re: Opaque data, XML, and SOAP > > > > > What is obvious to me is that the infoset is a very poor place to > > carry large binary data. > > Hmmm. I tend to agree, but it probably depends on what > "large" means in a particular context. I'll guess that what > we need are well-specified mechanisms that would allow > systems designers to *either* carry reasonably-sized binary > data along with the infoset when that is appropriate, or to > attach references to unreasonably sized binary data for the > situations where embedding it in the infoset is > inappropriate. Given that the Infoset is an abstraction, rather than a serialization, what does 'embedding it in the infoset' mean? Gudge
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2003 11:41:33 UTC