W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > March 2004

RE: comments on the xop draft

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 01:36:18 -0800
Message-ID: <DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B633801573BC5@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Erik Wilde" <net.dret@dret.net>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>


We have added your three comments to our issues list[1] as issues 460,
461 and 462. We hope to address them today at our face-to-face meeting.


[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Erik Wilde
> Sent: 02 March 2004 08:45
> To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: comments on the xop draft
> hello.
> (* i posted this message on the xmlp-comments@w3.org list a 
> while ago, but the xml-dist-app@w3.org list seems to be more 
> active, so i give it another try on this list... *)
> after reading through the xop draft, i have three comments to make:
> - in section 4.1 (creating xop packages) shouldn't it be left 
> to an implementation to decide whether creating a part is 
> worth the effort? as i understand them, the current rules 
> specify that every base64Binary node must be optimized, which 
> can increase rather than decrease message size for small binary parts.
> - when designing xml schemas, i usually avoid using xml 
> schema built-in types and create a layer of my own simple 
> types, which then are used in instances. i do this to be able 
> to restrict all simple types, for example with length facets. 
> wouldn't it be desirable to be able to optimize base64Binary 
> and restricted subtypes, rather than base64Binary only? as i 
> currently understand xop, my xml instances would not be 
> optimized at all, because they use types derived from 
> base64Binary. or would this be a requirement for my own type 
> augmentation software, to generate the appropriate type 
> information so that xop optimization works for base64Binary 
> and derived subtypes?
> - just out of curiosity: what happens with whitespace in 
> base64Binary data? as i understand it, canonical base64Binary 
> data may not contain any whitespace. is this intentional, 
> because i think that many base64Binary does contain the 
> linefeed characters required by rfc 2045.
> whitespace certainly would disappear in xop, and as i 
> understand it, it cannot be reconstructed in the 
> reconstituted dm. not that i think this would be a 
> requirement, but i think this whole issue of whitespace in 
> base64Binary data should be mentioned in the document.
> in replies to this message, please include my address 
> explicitly, if possible. thanks and kind regards,
> erik wilde  -  tel:+41-1-6325132  -  fax:+41-1-6321035
>     mailto:net.dret@dret.net  -  http://dret.net/netdret
>     computer engineering and networks laboratory   (tik)
>     swiss federal institute of technology, zurich (ethz)
Received on Tuesday, 2 March 2004 04:36:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:25 UTC