W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > May 2005

Re: W3C Last Call and Media Type request for comments: XQuery and XQueryX

From: Liam Quin <liam@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 10:38:59 -0400
To: MURATA Makoto <murata@hokkaido.email.ne.jp>
Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, ietf-types@iana.org, ietf-xml-mime@imc.org, public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <20050519143859.GA27635@w3.org>

On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 10:18:18AM +0900, MURATA Makoto wrote:
>  
> > (1) to remove the optional encoding parameter, as you suggested
> 
> I think that this is a wrong decision.  Please reintroduce the charset
> parameter.  If present, it overrides the encoding declaration or BOM. If
> it is absent, the encoding declaration or BOM is used.

Please note that this is for application/xquery -- a non-XML format.
For application/xqueryx+xml I'll send separate mail.

One reason for dropping the encoding parameter (after discussions
with Mark Baker and others) is that in practice it's unlikely to be
used... e.g. from a Web browser passing off to a local query processor
or from a saved file).  Since the format is "application", proxies
cannot transcode the file, so the encoding declaration in the file
is authoritative.

Interchange of a database query language over the Web in its own
Internet Type is likely for machine execution or to interchange
files, not for reading by humans, as then text/plain might be
more appropriate... but this is conjecture on my part right now.

Do you have an environment in which the encoding parameter is
useful or important?   We don't have a significant use case for
it, and our understanding was that the W3C TAG had considered
the encoding parameter to be a bad idea too.

Thanks!

Liam

-- 
Liam Quin, W3C XML Activity Lead, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
http://www.holoweb.net/~liam/
Received on Thursday, 19 May 2005 14:42:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:57:05 UTC