- From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:41:16 -0500
- To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
On Wednesday, Mar 26, 2003, at 12:17 US/Eastern, Martin Gudgin wrote: >> >> (ii) the current formulation misses an important facet of included >> attachments: their identity - i'll try to illustrate with a >> (contrived) example. > <SNIP>example</SNIP> >> >> I suspect that a constrained use of the swa:Representation >> element might help with this problem - that is if there is >> only 1 representation of a given resource in the MIME package >> the swa:Representation/@href can be used. Alternatively an >> application specific attachment reference mechanism could be >> used but that kind of defeats the purpose. > > Certainly I was thinking that where identity was important > swa:Representation would be used. > Do you have any specific thoughts on how this could be done, particularly in respect to solving the following: > I think the root of this problem is that the semantic of the > xbinc:Include/@href is value rather than reference based so multiple > references to a single attachment result in multiple logical copies of > the content in the XML infoset rather than multiple references. I think that solving the value vs reference problem is going to be key to having a coherent and rigorous model. Regards, Marc. -- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com> Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Monday, 31 March 2003 13:41:19 UTC