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: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 16:17:59 -0700
Message-ID: <41647D27.4090100@oracle.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
CC: public-ws-media-types@w3.org

+1
-Anish
--

Mark Nottingham wrote:

> Looks good. Maybe something like "Note that the use of this mechanism, 
> in particular the contentType attribute, does not require the 
> implementation, in whole or part, of XML Schema." in the Introduction.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> On Oct 5, 2004, at 11:48 PM, Anish Karmarkar wrote:
> 
>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
> 
> -- 
> Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
> Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
> 
Received on Wednesday, 6 October 2004 23:17:29 GMT

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