W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlp-comments@w3.org > July 2004

RE: Issue 486 closed

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 09:13:10 -0700
Message-ID: <DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B633802B55CF1@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Jun Fujisawa" <fujisawa.jun@canon.co.jp>
Cc: <xmlp-comments@w3.org>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jun Fujisawa [mailto:fujisawa.jun@canon.co.jp] 
> Sent: 13 July 2004 17:05
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: xmlp-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Issue 486 closed
> 
> Hi Martin,
> 
> At 3:27 AM -0700 04.7.13, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> >You raised an issue, number 486[1] regarding presence of the XOP
> >namespace declaration on the root element in an example in the XOP
> >specification[1]. The Working Group agrees that the example 
> is unclear
> >and will amend the example so that the namespace declaration 
> appears on
> >the Include element.
> 
> Does this means that no XOP namespace declaration occurs in the
> Original infoset of the revised example, and that the namespace
> declaration appears on each xop:Include element in the XOP Infoset
> instead?

Yes.

> 
> <m:photo xmlmime:content-type='image/png'>
>      <xop:Include href='cid:http://example.org/me.png'/
>          xmlns:xop='http://www.w3.org/2003/12/xop/include'>
> </m:photo>
> <m:sig xmlmime:content-type='application/pkcs7-signature'>
>      <xop:Include href='cid:http://example.org/my.hsh'/
>          xmlns:xop='http://www.w3.org/2003/12/xop/include'>
> </m:sig>

Exactly. The example will be amended as you show above.

> 
> If so, I'm happy with the suggested resolution.

Thanks!

Martin

> 
> -- 
> Jun Fujisawa
> <mailto:fujisawa.jun@canon.co.jp>
> 
Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2004 12:13:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:42:28 GMT