We should put
this on the agenda next call.
But that
needs more thoughts: there are several aspects to consider, in addition to the
primary focus on infoset optimization (base54 ).
We need to
look at the handling of messages that are initially in several [heterogeneous]
parts (i.e. not suitable to represent as a SOAP envelope
anyway)
I would
expect the MIME XOP package for SOAP to be of interest to us, and here we
need to look at the implications (e.g. role of the SOAP body compared to
a SWA approach, etc.)
I wouldn't
make the CR status a major plus... (many "notes" have had no acceptance problem
)
jacques
-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew MacKenzie
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 8:06
AM
To:
Subject: [ebxml-msg]
Fwd: SOAP w/ Attachments
I have to admit, this Microsoft fellow does make some sense. If we are
moving to SOAP 1.2, why not also move to XOP? A CR is more solid than a Note,
is it not?
Begin forwarded message:
From: Satish Thatte
<>
Date: October 7, 2004 10:58:22 AM
EDT
To: Matthew MacKenzie
<>, , frystyk
<>
Subject: RE: SOAP w/ Attachments
Matthew, Microsoft believes that the MTOM work
http://w3c.org/TR/2004/CR-soap12-mtom-20040826/ (shows the direction for the
future in this area and would encourage you to move to that direction instead
of updating a deprecated spec.
________________________________
From: Matthew MacKenzie [mailto:]
Sent: Mon 10/4/2004 9:48 AM
To: Satish Thatte; ; frystyk
Subject: SOAP w/ Attachments
Gentlemen,
I'm contacting you as the original authors of the SOAP With Attachments
W3C Note dated December 11, 2000. I am the current editor of the OASIS
ebXML Messaging standard (ISO 15000-2), and an working on the next
major release of our standard (v3). Version two of ebXML Messaging
made use of SOAP with Attachments which is specifically bound to SOAP
1.1. In Version 3, we would like to use SOAP 1.2.
The SwA note's contents would only require modest changes / amendments
to allow it to support SwA applications that are migrating to SOAP 1.2.
As a courtesy to the original authors of the Note, I'm asking for your
advice on how to proceed. I see it going one of two ways:
a) The original authors (and other interested parties, perhaps) submit
a new Note that includes provisions for SOAP 1.1 and 1.2.
b) We (possibly including Adobe, Fujitsu, British Telecom, Cyclone
Commerce and Sun Microsystems) submit a note that effectively overloads
the original note to specify what needs to be different in the MIME
package (the mime type, for example).
Your comments / intentions would be greatly appreciated.
Regards,
Matthew MacKenzie
Sr. Architect, Adobe Systems
Editor, OASIS ebXML Messaging TC
