Re: MTOM/XOP implementations/prototypes and use cases?
David Fallside <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.xml.distributed |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <OF8713C215.D225CD78-ON88256EAC.0067B2E3-88256EAC.0068BBA9@us.ibm.com> |
[email protected] wrote on 06/07/2004 09:08:35 AM: > > hi, > > are there available any (open source?) implementations/prototypes that > validate proposed spec practicality (casual googling did not find any)? > > isnt it important to follow IETF model for more than one proof of > concept implementation or is it too early at this stage? the working group (WG) will be looking for >1 proof of concept when we enter what W3C calls "Candidate Recommendation" (CR) review, however the WG is just about to enter "Last Call" review which typically precedes CR > > what is the current timeline for XOP/MTOM? > > did anybody try to set some use case and test interoperability? this will be part of CR, as an example see what we did for SOAP 1.2 CR: http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/03/soap1.2implementation.html > > it seems that since conception of initial idea the description becomes > more and more formal/complex/harder to read (like dependency on XML > Query model which depends on PSVI from XML Schemas ...). we no longer rely on Query's dm, e.g. http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/3/06/Attachments/OptimizationMechanism.html, you need to make sure you are reading the most up to date versions of our specs, they are still works in progress .... > > thanks, > > alek > thanks, David Fallside Chair, XMLP WG