W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-appformats@w3.org > September 2006

Re: XBL media type?

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 12:29:35 -0400
Message-ID: <c70bc85d0609060929l29e74b68p96d1f46284db282c@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: public-appformats@w3.org

On 9/6/06, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 17:59:40 +0200, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> wrote:
> > My reasoning is simply that it's advantageous to separate document
> > data and metadata (i.e. to not sniff) for reasons of security and
> > efficiency.
>
> I don't really see what you mean with the efficiency argument

I mean that I want to be able to hand off the incoming data stream to
the correct processor at the earliest possible time to minimize
latency, and since the media type arrives before the root namespace -
and in plain text form (not encrypted or compressed) - it's more
efficient to do so using its value.

> and the
> security argument applies nonetheless given that you also want to support
> it for arbitrary XML media types.

I'm not sure what security issue you're referring to, but I'm
referring to the kind that results from sniffing where documents can
be crafted which can masquerade for other formats, bypassing firewall
policies.

There's also the issue of placing unnecessary constraints on XML
language designers.  The namespace of the root element isn't special,
and I should be allowed to design an XML format which has a root
element with any namespace.  Like RDF/XML or XSLT, as mentioned
before.

Mark.
Received on Wednesday, 6 September 2006 16:29:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:10:20 GMT