- From: John J. Barton <John_Barton@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 11:56:15 -0700
- To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: "'Don Box'" <dbox@microsoft.com>, "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, "'John Kemp'" <john.kemp@earthlink.net>, "'Mark Nottingham'" <mark.nottingham@bea.com>, "'Xml-Dist-App@W3. Org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
I have a philosophical and a pragmatic reply to this note. First the pragmatic one: do we really need this URI thing? SOAP messages aren't just raining on services after all: the sender will be directing messages to endpoints. Why design the system to accept all kinds of XML dialects then design a solution for the sender to identify the dialect? Rather, just have the endpoint be the one that accepts the dialect of the sender. If you have a service S with two dialects A and B, the endpoints can be S/A and S/B rather than S with an A header dispatching to S/A and similar for S/B. I realize that intermediation has other issues, but the URI thing will hardly seems to address that either. (I'll spare the pragmatists by sending the philosophy separately ;-) John. At 01:34 PM 5/12/2003 -0400, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote: >Not wanting to overcomplicate this, but I have felt for some time that the >current MIME type system is way too limited to do what we may be about to >ask of it. For example, consider a purchase order in a SOAP envelope. >Before we get to assigning it a type, let's ask what is it? Well, in >some fundamental sense, it's a purchase order. Note that you can't find >that out from the root QName. Of course, it's equally fundamentally a >SOAP message. And it's an XML document. And it's, by the way, a UTF 8 or >UTF-16 encoding of Unicode. If it has a routing header it's also a >"routable message". > >I honestly view the natural semantics of these things as more of a "mixin" >sort of model. It seems to me that we keep trying to take little slices >through this mixin space, and then we always find out we need something >else. I have no constructive suggestions for exactly what to do, >organizationally or technically, except that I think it might be useful to >step back and gather some requirements and use cases before inventing new >mechanisms. > >I don't want to cross-post, but David you are welcome to relay this or >point it out to the TAG if useful. Both lists are public. Thanks. > >------------------------------------------------------------------ >Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 >IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 >One Rogers Street >Cambridge, MA 02142 >------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > >"David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com> >Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org >05/10/2003 02:08 PM > > > To: "'Mark Nottingham'" <mark.nottingham@bea.com>, "'Don Box'" ><dbox@microsoft.com>, "'John Kemp'" <john.kemp@earthlink.net> > cc: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, "'Xml-Dist-App@W3. Org'" ><xml-dist-app@w3.org>, (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM) > Subject: RE: SOAP MIME Type > > > >Yeah, that darned TAG ought to solve some of these issues. :-) > ><snip/> > > That having been said, there's no regular way to turn a QName > > into a URI > > [1], which I think is what Don wants to do. So, in the > > meantime, we could > > do something like > > XML-Dialect: "http://example.com/foo.xsd"; localname="Bar" > > making the localname parameter optional, so that we can drop > > it once the > > QName mapping issue is solved to everyone's satisfaction. > > > > This also has bearing on TAG issue 9 [2], and should be > > considered in that > > context. > > > > 1. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 > > 2. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#uriMediaType-9 > >Cheers, >Dave ______________________________________________________ John J. Barton email: John_Barton@hpl.hp.com http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/John_Barton/index.htm MS 1U-17 Hewlett-Packard Labs 1501 Page Mill Road phone: (650)-236-2888 Palo Alto CA 94304-1126 FAX: (650)-857-5100
Received on Monday, 12 May 2003 14:56:20 UTC