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: Rogers, Tony <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:27:31 +1000
Message-ID: <7997F38251504E43B38435DAF917887F40C47A@ausyms23.ca.com>
To: "Roberto Chinnici" <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>, "Joe Fialli" <Joseph.Fialli@Sun.COM>
Cc: "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
The middle of that is a bit clumsy - how about this instead?
 
The xmime:expectedContentType annotation can be used  in conjunction
  with either type or element declarations. Certain data-binding
  frameworks which use static type mappings can operate more efficiently if the
  xmime:expectedContentTypes annotation is applied to the complexType
  declarations instead of the 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.

Tony Rogers

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org on behalf of Roberto Chinnici 
	Sent: Thu 21-Apr-05 16:23 
	To: Joe Fialli 
	Cc: Anish Karmarkar; www-ws-desc@w3.org 
	Subject: Re: Media-type note: new wordings to take into account the issue that schema mapping tools have
	
	



	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 23:27:35 GMT

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