- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 09:42:38 -0700
- To: "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, "Mark Nottingham" <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
- Cc: <public-ws-media-types@w3.org>
The WSDL WG agreed to this resolution as part of its vote to move the document to Last Call. > -----Original Message----- > From: public-ws-media-types-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-media-types- > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Anish Karmarkar > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 4:18 PM > To: Mark Nottingham > Cc: public-ws-media-types@w3.org > Subject: Re: Comment: document title > > > +1 > -Anish > -- > > Mark Nottingham wrote: > > > Looks good. Maybe something like "Note that the use of this mechanism, > > in particular the contentType attribute, does not require the > > implementation, in whole or part, of XML Schema." in the Introduction. > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > On Oct 5, 2004, at 11:48 PM, Anish Karmarkar wrote: > > > >> Anish Karmarkar wrote: > >> > >>> Mark Nottingham wrote: > >>> > >>>> This text: > >>>> > >>>>> A type of the binary element information item must be a type > >>>>> derived from or equal to xs:base64Binary or xs:hexBinary. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> implies that the content must be typed. As it sits, it's ambiguous; > >>>> I read it to mean that typing is required. A *very* careful reading > >>>> might interpret it as saying something else, but most readers will > >>>> walk away from this statement convinced that it needs to be typed, > >>>> and a majority will walk away thinking that it needs to be typed > >>>> using XML Schema. > >>>> > >>>> If the intent is to only constrain the value *if* it is typed, > >>>> something like this would be more appropriate: > >>>> > >>>>> If a type is associated with a binary element information item, it > >>>>> MUST be derived from xs:base64Binary or xs:hexBinary in the case > >>>>> that the XML Schema type system [ref] is in use; when other type > >>>>> systems are in use, the type MUST be equivalent to them. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> (The definition of 'equivalent' between type systems seems a little > >>>> shaky here) > >>>> > >>>> OTOH, if the intent is to constrain the content of the element, > >>>> something like this would be more appropriate: > >>>> > >>> Yes, that is the intent. > >>> > >>>>> The content of a binary element information item MUST conform to > >>>>> the lexical constraints of xs:base64Binary or xs:hexBinary. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> That is certain a better way to say it. Or if we wanted to be more > >>> precise (and perhaps we should) we could say: > >>> The character information items comprising the [children] of the > >>> element information item MUST conform to the lexical constraints of > >>> xs:base64Binary and xs:hexBinary. > >> > >> > >> s/and/or > >> > >>> (but this is a mouthful) > >>> > >>>> > >>>> It would also be helpful if the Introduction stated that the > >>>> contentType attribute does not require the use of Schema, if that is > >>>> the intent (this is similar to the issues we encountered in XOP's > >>>> historic use of the XQDM). > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Oct 5, 2004, at 4:50 PM, Anish Karmarkar wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> But xmlmime:contentType attribute can be used independent of the > >>>>> XML schema and indicates the media type/content type of the binary > >>>>> element content in an XML document. > >>>>> > >>>>> Given this, do you still think that the title is confusing? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist > >>>> Office of the CTO BEA Systems > >>>> > >>>> > > > > -- > > Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist > > Office of the CTO BEA Systems > >
Received on Thursday, 14 October 2004 16:42:26 UTC