CARVIEW |
Select Language
HTTP/2 200
date: Wed, 08 Oct 2025 09:01:55 GMT
content-type: text/html
content-encoding: gzip
last-modified: Thu, 20 Jul 2023 23:26:50 GMT
cache-control: max-age=2592000, public
expires: Fri, 07 Nov 2025 03:17:46 GMT
vary: Accept-Encoding
access-control-allow-origin: *
x-request-id: 98b27caf68aaa403
strict-transport-security: max-age=15552015; preload
x-frame-options: deny
x-xss-protection: 1; mode=block
cf-cache-status: HIT
age: 20649
set-cookie: __cf_bm=D5o5YNmziHczkfQu4FoNgF__t.tgsV_bhZICNTtkq2w-1759914115-1.0.1.1-aRS.N1emWiXMC_9qvSfP5dmpZoWPNNgyLY5NSx2ms4EwDLiSMxpXFTEho3h1c_fpxCPL6scoK2VfJtHuChMFsJQJqegGC7Vzoflo1JOWADc; path=/; expires=Wed, 08-Oct-25 09:31:55 GMT; domain=.w3.org; HttpOnly; Secure; SameSite=None
server: cloudflare
cf-ray: 98b474d44c8c75e9-BLR
alt-svc: h3=":443"; ma=86400
Re: Indicating element nodes that must be optimized with XOP from Hugo Haas on 2004-06-02 (www-ws-desc@w3.org from June 2004)
Re: Indicating element nodes that must be optimized with XOP
- From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 12:51:06 +0200
- To: Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
- Cc: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>, Herve Ruellan <herve.ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
- Message-ID: <20040602105106.GH620@w3.org>
* Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com> [2004-06-01 18:38-0700] > IMO the required / optional aspect needs to be driven by, whether is the > optimization feature itself is required or optional. > At the element level all we need is a flag that indicates, if the > serialization is optimized then the elements tagged are to be part of it > (from the server perspective). Need to specify this @ only when true. > False is default when this flag is not present on an element. This is a good point. Requiring optimization of an element node only makes sense when the use of a feature providing XOP-packaging is required. > As an aside putting this flag on element definition (and not at the > binding level) is perhaps not great, but I am not sure the alternatives > would be simple. We could indeed imagine a use case where a provider provides two bindings with XOP support for the same service, and that each of those bindings have different characteristics and therefore requirements. One way we could approach this would be to have a xop:optimize element under binding, which references to the elements to be optimized: <binding> ... <xop:optimize> <element ref="id_of_element1_to_be_optimized" hint="required" /> <element ref="id_of_element2_to_be_optimized" hint="recommended" /> </xop:optimize> ... </binding> Regards, Hugo -- Hugo Haas - W3C mailto:hugo@w3.org - https://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2004 06:58:11 UTC