Re: FYI: comments on XOP and MTOM

I confess I don't quite get the concern on MTOM, since all we're doing in 
MTOM is sending XOP through SOAP I think.   Could it be that our wordy 
preamble (which mostly I wrote) is confusing people into thinking MTOM is 
something different than what the spec says?

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








Mark Nottingham <[email protected]>
Sent by: [email protected]
02/18/2004 04:27 PM

 
        To:     "'XMLP Dist App'" <[email protected]>
        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        FYI: comments on XOP and MTOM



On http://www.cafeconleche.org/ (doesn't seem to be any reliable way to 
link):

Regarding XOP:

"Fortunately, this does not seem to be a generic binary encoding of 
XML, just a more efficient means of bundling non-XML binary data with 
XML documents."

Regarding MTOM:

"I find the string typing implicit in this model to be seriously 
broken. It loses information (i.e. it's a lossy compression format) and 
makes too many assumptions about what content is and is not relevant."


--
Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems