W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > November 2003

Re: Proposed resolution for issue 440

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 23:00:50 -0500
To: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Cc: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>, Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Xml-Dist-App@W3. Org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFD96A0237.E845ECE8-ON85256DD8.001592DB@lotus.com>

Anish Karamarkar writes:

>> We have already accepted use case UC6 [2]

I'm not being fascetious here, but MTOM is a layered system, and we need 
to be clear on the layers to which our use cases apply.  At the highest 
level, we clearly meet this use case already.  I suspect that those who 
proposed it also want it to apply to the particular serialization we are 
recommending, but we should probably say so. 

FWIW:  for exactly the reasons Gudge has raised, I have some concerns 
about our having approved UC-6.  The concerns are not strong enough for me 
personally to request that we reopen the question if we have a "status 
quo" decision, but I am sympathetic to the downsides of having to do 
reference counting at intermediaries.  Depending on how implementations 
work, this could require intermediaries to do a much more careful parse 
than would otherwise be necessary.  Without this, I could go into a 
well-formedness check on headers not targeted at me, at least in many 
cases.  With this, I will almost surely have to check them for 
xbinc:includes so I can count 'em up.  Seems like complexity to me.  If 
there is a compelling need for the use case, fair enough.  If it's on the 
20 side of 80/20, I have some doubts.  Thank you!


[2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/3/10/wd/soap-os-ucr.html
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Received on Friday, 7 November 2003 23:01:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:12:00 UTC