RE: Action 2005-01-13 Resolution of Issue 270

Your message really confused me. My original comment raised
three issues -- what is the status of the other two?
The other two comments are more serious, since they call into
question the entire concept.

In any case, I think you've not really addressed the problem
that implementers might assume that content-type strings were
actually normalized (i.e., such that two equivalent strings
were equal strings), and that, no matter what the origin of the
phrase "[normalized value]", you should clarify that content-type
strings are not expected to actually be normalized (even to the
point of all being lower case).

Larry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yalcinalp, Umit [mailto:umit.yalcinalp@sap.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 5:26 PM
> To: LMM@acm.org
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Action 2005-01-13 Resolution of Issue 270 
> 
> Larry, 
> 
> WSDL wg has evaluated Issue 270 that you have raised with respect to
> normalization of contentType attribute values as stated in [1] item (3)
> wrt the LC version of Assigning Media Types to Binary Data in XML [2]. 
> 
> The document uses the term [normalized value] to refer to normalization
> of attribute values in XML as specified in XML Infoset [3] and in XML
> [4]. Therefore, our document does not intend to specify normalization
> specific to contentType string values or tend to provide normalization
> in any other way other than what is required for XML attribute values.
> We are basically using Infoset specific terminology as stated 
> in [3] to obtain the value of contentType strings from the Infoset. 
> 
> Therefore, the wg has decided to close issue 270 with no action. 
> 
> Best Regards, 
> 
> --umit
> 
> [1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-media-types/2004Nov/0006.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-media-types/
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/#infoitem.attribute
> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/
>

Received on Thursday, 24 February 2005 06:38:27 UTC