Re: Media-type note: new wordings to take into account the issue that schema mapping tools have

Anish Karmarkar wrote:

> Here are the wordings Glen, Umit, Roberto and I agreed on to resolve 
> the issue:
>
> The xmime:expectedContentType annotation can be used  in conjunction
> with either type or element declarations. Certain data-binding
> frameworks which use static type mappings prefer the
> xmime:expectedContentTypes annotation to be on named complexType
> declarations as opposed to on element declarations using those types. To
> achieve maximum interoperability

It is incorrect to state that interoperability is impacted.  I would advise
replacing "maximum interoperability" with "optimal static databinding"
or "more precise static databinding".

For example, instead of binding mime type "image/jpeg" to the more 
specific type, java.awt.Image, static
databinding will bind to a more generic javax.activation.DataHandler, 
that still
preserves the binary content fully. There is no interoperability issue, 
the databinding
solution must serialize/deserialize the binary data precisely the same. 
The user of
the api does not have as convenient to use static data binding.

-Joe

> with these tools, the use of
> expectedContentTypes on element declarations using named complex types
> is not recommended. An example is provided in Example 6.
>
> -Anish
> -- 
>