W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > November 2003

Re: Representation header

From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 09:32:31 -0800
Message-Id: <33566513-107F-11D8-9ABA-00039396E15A@bea.com>
Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, "Xml-Dist-App@W3. Org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
To: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>


On Nov 5, 2003, at 12:17 AM, Anish Karmarkar wrote:

>> * content encoding - should we have a separate piece of metadata that 
>> talks about the encoding? In MIME, that's Content-Transfer-Encoding; 
>> in HTTP it's content-coding. If we don't do this, it bakes base64 in 
>> as the only option ever (because it's implicit), so it may be 
>> beneficial to specify something like
>
> I am not sure I understand, aren't the contents of the EII always 
> base64Binary?

I was actually toying with the idea of having a relationship between 
the headers in the XML and the headers in MIME, but I've become 
convinced that this isn't necessary (and actually would be a bad 
thing).

I think we should consider, however, that some Representations that 
people want to convey with messages may not be base64 encoded. The main 
use case I can think of would be text-based formats like CSS; it seems 
extremely un-human-friendly to require these to be base64 encoded when 
doing so doesn't provide any benefit.


--
Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2003 12:32:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:15 GMT