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.comReceived 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