W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > November 2011

[Bug 14932] [FO30] fn:unparsed-text

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 19:39:40 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1RVq0K-0007Mq-Tw@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14932

--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@gmail.com> 2011-11-30 19:39:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)

> > Web friendliness is important. Let's make sure we don't achieve that at the
> > expense of data integration.
> 
> i don't see how a more orthogonal design of web-oriented functionality would
> create problems for data integration. on the contrary, data integration often
> will be based on being able to take full advantage of web architecture, and if
> i don't have control over, for example, HTTP methods and headers, then there
> are a lot of things i just cannot do with data that is exposed on the web.

I think we should start with requirements and use cases, both for existing
applications and those you envision.

> how is this achieved right now?

You ask this about a few items - I think that's a question we would have to
look at across existing implementations. The ones I have worked with tend to
use collection() for persistent XDM or relational tables, and use doc() for a
variety of things.

I would not be at all surprised if some implementations use doc() in the same
way implementations I have been involved with use collection().

> > * Data converters
> 
> how is this achieved right now? nothing that is just URI-based, i assume?

Depends a great deal on the vendor.

DataDirect's data converters (which I did not specify) use URIs to specify a
conversion, conversion parameters can be specified as part of the URL:

doc("converter:Base64:newline=crlf:encoding=utf-8?file///w:/myfiles/base_to_xml.bin")

> > I'm probably missing some important use cases - implementations do wildly
> > different things with doc().
> 
> do they do any magic that is not in line with web architecture? if not, then
> separating the currently mixed concerns might help.

I honestly don't know what all implementations do. I think we would have to
find out. We have to be careful if we forbid anything that was previously
allowed. Sometimes we do that, but very carefully.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 30 November 2011 19:39:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:57:37 UTC