W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > October 2001

RE: Possibility of an XML Document Type

From: Corda, Ugo <Ugo.Corda@usa.xerox.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 10:09:24 -0700
To: "'Rich Salz'" <rsalz@zolera.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-id: <0670B83B1F99D2118DAF00805F6505C904485837@USAESMS1>
In many cases images are much bigger than the associated XML document, and
you might not want to base64-encode them (processing time and resulting
size). 

Also, small devices that do not accept images and only deal with text would
not need to implement a processor to handle MIME multipart/related or
whatever other mechanism is used for attachments.

Ugo

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Salz [mailto:rsalz@zolera.com]
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 6:18 AM
To: Corda, Ugo
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Subject: Re: Possibility of an XML Document Type


> Yes, but I would prefer to reserve that for cases when it's really
> necessary, e.g. when the main XML document has image attachments.

I don't understand why images are "really necessary" and XML isn't, can
you please explain?

In general, I prefer attachments because the parsing is more efficient
-- I don't have to create an entire string only to (quickly?:) replace
it with an XML document.

-- 
Zolera Systems, Your Key to Online Integrity
Securing Web services: XML, SOAP, Dig-sig, Encryption
http://www.zolera.com
Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 13:09:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:04 GMT