- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 13:52:51 -0500
- To: <xmlp-comments@w3.org>
In Sept. I sent an email to distApp announcing that the data model formulation of MTOM was ready for consideration by the XMLP Workgroup [1]. Subsequently, the workgroup agreed to adopt the DM formulation. In the email, I raised some concerns that should have turned into issues, but apparently we never formally added them to the list. Specifically, see the paragraph that says: "At least one set of details remains to be resolved if the DM formulation is to be used: the current draft does not discuss all of the accessors provided by the data model. For example, element nodes [5] provide a base-uri [6], which in principle can vary for each element. Future versions of the draft would need to explain that, like type information, such base URI and similar information is not transmitted. This limitation is consistent with the general philosophy that MTOM will transform the input data model to a different (but predictably different) output data model at the receiver. In general, the transmission will exactly preserve certain information, will lose other information such as base URI and type, and will not add or synthesize other information, except as directly follows from the losses (e.g. typed values change in the obvious way when type information is lost.)" So, as suggested on our telcon of today, this is a request to open an issue. I suggest that the issue be relatively broad, along the lines of "Do a thorough review of the DM, MTOM and if appropriate Miffy specs to ensure that all interdependency issues, including those raised in [1], have been dealt with in an appropriate manner." Thank you. Noah [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2003Sep/0026.html -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2003 13:53:49 UTC