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

Re: Issue 464 (documentation of extensibility) proposal

From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:52:40 -0800
Message-Id: <CD0ECAC2-73AE-11D8-8EB5-000A95BD86C0@bea.com>
Cc: "'XMLP Dist App'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com

OK, thanks. I'll noodle on it some more; I'd like it to be as tight as 
possible (really, the whole point of this section IMO).


On Mar 11, 2004, at 1:55 PM, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:

> I think I raised the concern.  Your proposal is fine with me (though I
> suspect that with some effort we might make it a bit tighter, but I 
> don't
> have any bright ideas to suggest just now.)  All set as far as I'm
> concerned.  Thanks.
>
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
> Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
> 03/10/04 04:25 PM
>
>
>         To:     "'XMLP Dist App'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
>         cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
>         Subject:        Re: Issue 464 (documentation of extensibility) 
> proposal
>
>
>
> On today's call, there was some concern expressed about the phrase
> "does not constrain the use of extensions..."
>
> I'd propose that the phrase "does not constrain the use of its defined
> mechanisms, including those explicitly allowing extension..."
>
> Does that address the concern?
>
>
> On Mar 9, 2004, at 6:24 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
>>
>> This proposal partially fulfils my AI to suggest a means of
>> documenting extensibility in XOP and MTOM; it concentrates on XOP. If,
>> after discussion, we can agree on this or a suitable replacement, I'll
>> extend it to include MTOM.
>>
>> This is written as an Appendix to XOP; other editorial approaches may
>> be more appropriate.
>>
>> ---8<---
>>
>> A.x Relationships To and Constraints Upon Other Specifications
>>
>> This appendix summarizes the dependencies upon XOP's underlying
>> specifications, the nature of appropriate payloads for XOP, and the
>> means of extending XOP.
>>
>> A.x.1 Dependencies
>>
>> This format builds upon a number of underlying specifications, whose
>> use is required. They are;
>>
>> * XML 1.0 - The XOP Document is encoded using XML 1.0; see section
>> XXX. XOP does not constrain the use of extensions or underlying
>> specifications in XML 1.0.
>>
>> * Namespaces in XML - The XOP Document uses Namespaces in XML; see
>> section XXX. XOP does not constrain the use of extensions or
>> underlying specifications in Namespaces in XML.
>>
>> * Uniform Resource Identifiers - The XOP Document uses URIs to locate
>> parts in the XOP Package; see section XXX. XOP does not constrain the
>> use of extensions or underlying specifications in URIs.
>>
>> Additionally, some underlying functions might be performed by a number
>> of specifications. They are;
>>
>> * Packaging Mechanism - XOP requires the use of a packaging mechanism
>> that sastisfies the requirements in Section XXX; one such mechanism
>> must be in use, but XOP does not require a specific mechanism.
>>
>> The relationship of one such mechanism to XOP, The MIME
>> Multipart/Related Content-type, is specified in Section XXX.
>>
>> A.x.2 Payload
>>
>> The payload of a XOP Package is an XML Infoset. XOP constrains the
>> range of permissable characters in the payload to those contained by
>> the XML 1.0 "Char" production. Additionally, the Input Infoset cannot
>> contain an element with a localname of "Include" and a namespace URI
>> of "XXX". Finally, portions of the payload which are nominated for
>> optimization in XOP must be legally and canonically base64-encoded.
>> See section XXX for more information.
>>
>> A.x.3 Extension
>>
>> XOP Documents do not allow extension; changes to the format must be
>> identified by a new namespace identifier.
>>
>> The extensibility of XOP's underlying specifications is not
>> constrained.
>>
>> ---8<---
>>
>> --
>> Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
>> Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
>>
>>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
> Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
>
>
>
>
>

--
Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2004 17:52:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:16 GMT