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

RE: Comment: document title

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 09:42:38 -0700
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A5054E7535@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, "Mark Nottingham" <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Cc: <public-ws-media-types@w3.org>

The WSDL WG agreed to this resolution as part of its vote to move the
document to Last Call.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-media-types-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-media-types-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Anish Karmarkar
> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 4:18 PM
> To: Mark Nottingham
> Cc: public-ws-media-types@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Comment: document title
> 
> 
> +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 Thursday, 14 October 2004 16:42:26 GMT

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