- From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
- Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 21:20:54 -0700
- To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Cc: www-dom@w3.org
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). Regards, -- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems
Received on Monday, 3 May 2004 00:20:59 UTC