W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-discuss@w3.org > April 2001

Re: Two new drafts: Multipart/Interleaved and Application /BatchBeep

From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 12:55:04 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20010424121557.03357008@brandenburg.com>
To: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org
At 11:29 AM 4/24/2001, Jacob Palme wrote:
>RFC822 example:
>     From: Father Christmas <fchristmas@northpole.arctic>
>
>The XML encoding uses five times as many characters.

>     <from>
>       <user-friendly-name>Father Christmas</user-friendly-name>
>       <e-mail-address>
>         <localpart>fchristmas</localpart>
>         <domainpart>
>           <domainelement>northpole</domainelement>
>           <domainelement>arctic</domainelement>
>       </domainpart>
>     </from>

Alas, it uses far more than that...

>     <from>
>       <user-friendly-name>
           <friendly-name-char>F</friendly-name-char>
           <friendly-name-char>a</friendly-name-char>
           <friendly-name-char>t</friendly-name-char>
           <friendly-name-char>h</friendly-name-char>
           <friendly-name-char>e</friendly-name-char>
           <friendly-name-char>r</friendly-name-char>
           <friendly-name-char> </friendly-name-char>
           <friendly-name-char>C</friendly-name-char>
           <friendly-name-char>h</friendly-name-char>
           <friendly-name-char>r</friendly-name-char>
           <friendly-name-char>i</friendly-name-char>
           <friendly-name-char>s</friendly-name-char>
           <friendly-name-char>t</friendly-name-char>
           <friendly-name-char>m</friendly-name-char>
           <friendly-name-char>a</friendly-name-char>
           <friendly-name-char>s</friendly-name-char>
         </user-friendly-name>
>       <e-mail-address>
>         <localpart>
                 <localchar>f</localchar>
                 <localchar>c</localchar>
                 <localchar>h</localchar>
                 <localchar>r</localchar>
                 <localchar>i</localchar>
                 <localchar>s</localchar>
                 <localchar>t</localchar>
                 <localchar>m</localchar>
                 <localchar>a</localchar>
                 <localchar>s</localchar>
           </localpart>
>         <domainpart>
>           <domainelement>
                 <domainchar>n</domainchar>
                 <domainchar>O</domainchar>
                 <domainchar>r</domainchar>
                 <domainchar>t</domainchar>
                 <domainchar>h</domainchar>
                 <domainchar>p</domainchar>
                 <domainchar>o</domainchar>
                 <domainchar>l</domainchar>
                 <domainchar>e</domainchar>
             </domainelement>
>           <domainelement>arctic</domainelement>
                 <domainchar>a</domainchar>
                 <domainchar>r</domainchar>
                 <domainchar>c</domainchar>
                 <domainchar>t</domainchar>
                 <domainchar>i</domainchar>
                 <domainchar>c</domainchar>
             </domainelement>
>       </domainpart>
>     </from>

>It does have, however, the advantage that you need not have special
>rules for each new punctuation character which occurs as in the
>RFC822 variant.

Each of the strings has different permissible sets of characters, so in 
fact you do need to have special rules for each type of string.

Of course, the real purpose of extending the example is to show that the 
example can be biased at the whim of the writer, exactly as Keith has been 
trying to explain.

Efficiency vs. ease of use are a juggling act.  Note, for example, that 
RFC822 and domain parsers are plentiful, so calling for their use is 
reasonable.  Hence while the original XML is rationale, an equally 
plausible choice is:

>     <from>
>       <display-name>Father Christmas</display-name>
>         <localpart></localpart>
>         <addrspec>fchristmas@northpole.arctic</addrspec>
>     </from>

Serendipitous we have a real-world example of a design choice made for 
exactly this circumstance, from 
<draft-klyne-message-rfc822-xml-01.txt>.  It chose a somewhat different 
balance from either example:


>        <rfc822:from>
>          <emx:Address>
>            <emx:adrs>mailto:Pooh@PoohCorner.100Aker.org</emx:adrs>
>            <emx:name>Winnie the Pooh</emx:name>
>          </emx:Address>
>        </rfc822:from>

It is still an early draft, so one might imagine some further optimization, 
for improved conciseness...

d/

----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2001 16:01:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:38:01 UTC