W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > December 2000

Re: [DR008] - passing arbitrary content

From: Kevin Mitchell <kevin.mitchell@xmls.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 14:48:34 GMT
Message-ID: <20001205.14483400@kevinm01.xmls.com>
To: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org
good point.  How about the following as a combined, proposed rewording of 
DR's 008 and 040:

"In keeping with the spirit of a minimalist design as specified in the 
XML Protocol Working Group Charter, the XML Protocol Working Group does 
not have specific requirements concerning binary data support. The same 
approach applies to support for arbitrary non-XML content such as text 
files. However, the XML Protocol Working Group recognizes that some 
applications of the XML Protocol will require the exchange of arbitrary 
non-XML or binary data such as JPEG and PNG. To facilitate such 
implementations, the XML Protocol Working Group may illustrate how such 
exchanges may be accomplished in a non-normative section of the XML 
Protocol specification.  These illustrations will 
leverage the work already done in this area by the ebXML and RosettaNet 
groups."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

On 12/5/00, 7:37:57 AM, Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr> wrote 
regarding Re: [DR008] - passing arbitrary content:


> Kevin Mitchell wrote:

> > Current wording of DR008
> > Support passing arbitrary content from third parties [...]
> > Proposal
> > I am not sure what this requirement adds on top of DR040. [...]
> > Therefore, I propose we strike this requirement from the
> > document.

> Well, I think there is a subtle difference between DR 8 and DR 40:

>    * DR 40 talks about binary content, such as a JPEG file.
>    * DR 8 talks about arbitrary (read non-XML) content, such as a JPEG 
file
>      OR a text document.

> DR 8 is a superset of DR 40, and if there was one requirement to drop, it
> would be DR 40 instead of DR 8. However, given that DR 8 is important to
> some people (although out-of-scope today), I propose that we keep both
> requirements explicitely, rewording DR 8 as follows:

> "XP will not support passing arbitrary content from third parties within 
an
> XP enveloppe, at least initially."

> Jean-Jacques.
Received on Tuesday, 5 December 2000 09:53:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:57 GMT