- From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:26:35 -0700
- To: "Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>
- CC: "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>, Roberto Chinnici <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>, Joe Fialli <Joseph.Fialli@Sun.COM>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Don't anthropomorphize software, they hate it B-) -Anish -- Rogers, Tony wrote: > Roberto's wording does not express anything about precision. > > I have a strong dislike of any wording which attributes human feelings > (such as "prefer") to software (such as binding frameworks) - I want to > find wording that avoids the anthromorphism. > > Another try: > > The xmime:expectedContentType annotation can be used in conjunction > with either type or element declarations. Certain data-binding > frameworks which use static type mappings can be more specific if the > xmime:expectedContentTypes annotation is applied to the complexType > declarations instead of the element declarations using those > types. For this reason, the use of expectedContentTypes on element > declarations using named complex types is not recommended. An example > is provided in Example 6. > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Yalcinalp, Umit [mailto:umit.yalcinalp@sap.com] > *Sent:* Thu 21-Apr-05 16:33 > *To:* Rogers, Tony; Roberto Chinnici; Joe Fialli > *Cc:* Anish Karmarkar; www-ws-desc@w3.org > *Subject:* RE: Media-type note: new wordings to take into account > the issue that schema mapping tools have > > The issue is not efficiency but precision. I prefer Roberto's wording. > > Regards, > > --umit > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* www-ws-desc-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] > *Sent:* Thursday, Apr 21, 2005 4:28 PM > *To:* Roberto Chinnici; Joe Fialli > *Cc:* Anish Karmarkar; www-ws-desc@w3.org > *Subject:* RE: Media-type note: new wordings to take into > account the issue that schema mapping tools have > > The middle of that is a bit clumsy - how about this instead? > > The xmime:expectedContentType annotation can be used in conjunction > with either type or element declarations. Certain data-binding > frameworks which use static type mappings can operate more > efficiently if the > xmime:expectedContentTypes annotation is applied to the > complexType > declarations instead of the element declarations using those > types. For this reason, the use of expectedContentTypes on element > declarations using named complex types is not recommended. An > example > is provided in Example 6. > Tony Rogers > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* www-ws-desc-request@w3.org on behalf of Roberto > Chinnici > *Sent:* Thu 21-Apr-05 16:23 > *To:* Joe Fialli > *Cc:* Anish Karmarkar; www-ws-desc@w3.org > *Subject:* Re: Media-type note: new wordings to take into > account the issue that schema mapping tools have > > > > Good point. How about the following: > > The xmime:expectedContentType annotation can be used in > conjunction > with either type or element declarations. Certain data-binding > frameworks which use static type mappings prefer the > xmime:expectedContentTypes annotation to be on named > complexType > declarations as opposed to on element declarations using those > types. For this reason, the use of expectedContentTypes on > element > declarations using named complex types is not recommended. > An example > is provided in Example 6. > > Roberto > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Joe Fialli <Joseph.Fialli@sun.com> > Date: Thursday, April 21, 2005 4:06 pm > Subject: Re: Media-type note: new wordings to take into > account the > issue that schema mapping tools have > > > > > Anish Karmarkar wrote: > > > > > Here are the wordings Glen, Umit, Roberto and I agreed > on to > > resolve > > > the issue: > > > > > > The xmime:expectedContentType annotation can be used > in conjunction > > > with either type or element declarations. Certain > data-binding > > > frameworks which use static type mappings prefer the > > > xmime:expectedContentTypes annotation to be on named > complexType > > > declarations as opposed to on element declarations > using those > > types. To > > > achieve maximum interoperability > > > > It is incorrect to state that interoperability is > impacted. I > > would advise > > replacing "maximum interoperability" with "optimal static > databinding" > > or "more precise static databinding". > > > > For example, instead of binding mime type "image/jpeg" to > the more > > specific type, java.awt.Image, static > > databinding will bind to a more generic > > javax.activation.DataHandler, > > that still > > preserves the binary content fully. There is no > interoperability > > issue, > > the databinding > > solution must serialize/deserialize the binary data > precisely the > > same. > > The user of > > the api does not have as convenient to use static data > binding. > > > > -Joe > > > > > with these tools, the use of > > > expectedContentTypes on element declarations using > named complex > > types> is not recommended. An example is provided in > Example 6. > > > > > > -Anish > > > -- > > > > > >
Received on Friday, 22 April 2005 00:26:50 UTC