W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > April 2005

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

From: Roberto Chinnici <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:23:41 -0700
To: Joe Fialli <Joseph.Fialli@Sun.COM>
Cc: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-id: <43afd34393e1.4393e143afd3@sun.com>


Good point. How about the following:

  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. For this reason, the use of expectedContentTypes on element
  declarations using named complex types is not recommended. An example
  is provided in Example 6.

Roberto

----- Original Message -----
From: Joe Fialli <Joseph.Fialli@sun.com>
Date: Thursday, April 21, 2005 4:06 pm
Subject: 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
> > -- 
> >
Received on Thursday, 21 April 2005 23:23:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:35 GMT