RE: [DR008] - passing arbitrary content

David has a good point here. Furthermore, not all arbitrary data is JPEG or
PNG. Scenarios exist today for distributed processing of arbitrary data
streams (Xerox production printing solutions currently manage such
applications). So I think we should mention INDIRECT handling of arbitrary
data as a req't. Doing this does not seem to constrain or unduly burden the
protocol.

Bill Anderson
Xerox Corp.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David E. Cleary [mailto:davec@progress.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 10:35 AM
> To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [DR008] - passing arbitrary content
> 
> 
> >good point.  How about the following as a combined, proposed 
> rewording
> >of DR's 008 and 040:
> 
> I object to doing this in a non-normative fashion on the 
> grounds that it
> will render XP neutered for real world applications. ebXML, 
> BizTalk, and
> XForms all require this functionality and there is plenty of 
> prior work for
> the WG to pick from, so there is no reason to not do this. 
> DIRECT handling
> of binary data is out of scope. INDIRECT handling of binary 
> data is well
> within the scope of our charter, and I do not believe XP will 
> ever reach rec
> without this.
> 
> David Cleary
> Progress Software
>

Received on Tuesday, 5 December 2000 13:52:19 UTC