W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-forms-editor@w3.org > July 2002

RE: 43 and 47- Response to your issue sent to the XForms WG abou t the XForms Last Call WD

From: Klotz, Leigh <Leigh.Klotz@pahv.xerox.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 14:41:04 -0700
Message-ID: <51B8ABCE456FD111899900805F6FD6EE0FF573E5@mercury.ADOC.xerox.com>
To: "'Thierry Michel'" <tmichel@w3.org>, "Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@pahv.xerox.com>
Cc: "'www-forms-editor@w3.org'" <www-forms-editor@w3.org>, "McIntyre, Lloyd" <Lloyd.McIntyre@pahv.xerox.com>
Thierry,

I agree with the XForms WG resolution of 0061, but I do not agree with the
disposition 0066.

0066 proposed adoption of multipart/related as a means for binary submission
in combination with 0061.
The referenced notes from the Copenhagen Face to Face propose
multipart/form-data as the MIME type, by analogy with the existing HTML form
submission enctype that uses that MIME type. Unfortunately, by my reading of
RFC 2833 [1], putting the XML description of the entire form submission in
one part is not compliant, nor would it work with servers expecting legacy
format.
Xerox produces products [2], [5] which rely on multipart/form-data [3] [4],
and its ability to include both binary upload data and multiple name/value
pairs of other form data in the same POST. For a working example, see [2].

Therefore, while I applaud the adoption of a serialiation format suitable
for submission of large amounts of binary data, I believe that the MIME type
should be multipart/related, and that multipart/form-data submission should
be separately described, and should work primarily for the legacy case of
simple instance data, for compatibility with existing web servers.  I will
work with the rest of the XForms WG to resolve this issue.

Finally, I express no opinion here about multipart/form-data submission for
instance data with structure other than name/value pairs, as it is not a
legacy case broken by the proposed solution nor was it a requirement of my
original last-call comment; however, if such an opinion is sought, I will
gladly give one.

[1] RFC 2388 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2388.txt
[2] Xerox DocuShare Sandbox Server http://docushare.xerox.com:8001/
[3] Xerox DocuShare, http://www.xerox.com/docushare
[4] docushare.jpg, Attached screen shot for DocuShare
[5] Xerox Document Centre,
http://www.xerox.com/go/xrx/template/display2X.jsp?URL=products/PT_4.jsp&fam
ily=Document+Centre+Family
[6] print.jpg Attached screen shot for Document Centre web-based printing

Leigh L. Klotz, Jr.
Xerox Corporation


-----Original Message-----
From: Thierry Michel [mailto:tmichel@w3.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 6:12 AM
To: Leigh Klotz (E-mail)
Cc: www-forms-editor@w3.org
Subject: 43 and 47- Response to your issue sent to the XForms WG about the
XForms Last Call WD


Leigh,

Your issue sent to the W3C XForms WG about the XForms Last Call Working
draft
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-xforms-20020118/

Your issue is archived at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2002Feb/0061.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms-editor/2002Feb/0066.html

XForms WG Resolution:

see
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/Group/2002/f2f-Copenhagen/OpenIssues.html



Please respond to state that you agree with this Resolution.





docushare.jpg
(image/jpeg attachment: docushare.jpg)

print.jpg
(image/jpeg attachment: print.jpg)

Received on Tuesday, 30 July 2002 17:42:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 10 June 2009 18:12:11 GMT