W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-media-types@w3.org > October 2004

Re: Comment: document title

From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 23:48:58 -0700
Message-ID: <4163955A.90107@oracle.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
CC: public-ws-media-types@w3.org

Anish Karmarkar wrote:

> 
> Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
>> This text:
>>
>>>     A type of the binary element information item must be a type 
>>> derived from or equal to  xs:base64Binary or xs:hexBinary.
>>
>>
>>
>> implies that the content must be typed. As it sits, it's ambiguous; I 
>> read it to mean that typing is required. A *very* careful reading 
>> might interpret it as saying something else, but most readers will 
>> walk away from this statement convinced that it needs to be typed, and 
>> a majority will walk away thinking that it needs to be typed using XML 
>> Schema.
>>
>> If the intent is to only constrain the value *if* it is typed, 
>> something like this would be more appropriate:
>>
>>> If a type is associated with a binary element information item, it 
>>> MUST be derived from xs:base64Binary or xs:hexBinary in the case that 
>>> the XML Schema type system [ref] is in use; when other type systems 
>>> are in use, the type MUST be equivalent to them.
>>
>>
>>
>> (The definition of 'equivalent' between type systems seems a little 
>> shaky here)
>>
>> OTOH, if the intent is to constrain the content of the element, 
>> something like this would be more appropriate:
>>
> 
> Yes, that is the intent.
> 
>>> The content of a binary element information item MUST conform to the 
>>> lexical constraints of xs:base64Binary or xs:hexBinary.
>>
>>
> 
> That is certain a better way to say it. Or if we wanted to be more 
> precise (and perhaps we should) we could say:
> 
> The character information items comprising the [children] of the element 
> information item MUST conform to the lexical constraints of 
> xs:base64Binary and xs:hexBinary.
> 

s/and/or

> (but this is a mouthful)
> 
>>
>> It would also be helpful if the Introduction stated that the 
>> contentType attribute does not require the use of Schema, if that is 
>> the intent (this is similar to the issues we encountered in XOP's 
>> historic use of the XQDM).
>>
>>
>> On Oct 5, 2004, at 4:50 PM, Anish Karmarkar wrote:
>>
>>> But xmlmime:contentType attribute can be used independent of the XML 
>>> schema and indicates the media type/content type of the binary 
>>> element content in an XML document.
>>>
>>> Given this, do you still think that the title is confusing?
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
>> Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
>>
> 
Received on Wednesday, 6 October 2004 06:49:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:08:52 GMT