W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: Request for review: XOP

From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 21:20:54 -0700
Message-Id: <44D8F323-9CB9-11D8-AA0E-000A95BD86C0@bea.com>
Cc: www-dom@w3.org
To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>

On May 1, 2004, at 2:09 AM, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:

Speaking only for myself, I found this comment interesting;

>  It would pollute DOM with features that have no function when 
> processing XML, as opposed to XOP. Processing XOP requires a XOP API, 
> not an XML API.

XML allows base64-encoded content; indeed, this is a practice that is 
encouraged by other recommendation-level W3C specifications. Is it too 
difficult to believe that people creating or consuming documents 
containing such content might actually want to work with the binary 
data instead of its encoded form? I would think that use cases for such 
data that explicitly focus on the encoded form are by far in the 
minority (Digital Signature is the only significant one that comes to 
mind immediately).


Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
Received on Monday, 3 May 2004 00:20:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:46:12 UTC