- From: Yalcinalp, Umit <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 03:31:10 +0100
- To: <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: <public-ws-media-types@w3.org>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <99CA63DD941EDC4EBA897048D9B0061D12385BEC@uspalx20a.pal.sap.corp>
Dear Henry, On behalf of WSD wg, I would like to thank you to give us detailed Architectural comments and feedback for [1] in your email [2] which is recorded as WSD Issue 272 [3]. We also thank you for joining us in the f2f meeting [4] and clarifying the usage of NOTATION in XML Schema and illustrating how we may be able to utilize it in our note. As you probably know, the current approach taken has been the result of evaluating several months of discussion within the WSD wg, XMLP wg and consequently in the joint media types task force. We have evaluated defining the full hierarchy of content type Schema Types, use of URNs, use of XML Schema Annotations as well as NOTATIONS in several f2f meetings and as part of the task force discussions. The current design is the conclusion of this work and reflects the consensus of the wg. We think that using global attributes provide a flexible approach. This approach is considered preferable for the following reasons: -- The contentType and expectedContentTypes values are not fixed in our note, hence they don't require us to define a fixed hierarchy and/or require users utilizing an existing type hierarchy and extend it. The wg does not want to define or maintain type hierarchies that are extensible themselves and would like to retain the extensibility of the contentType value domain. Instead, it is felt that referring to the definition of Accept header values and Content type values would be sufficient as they are already defined (with some restrictions) to provide the flexibility and extensibility that is intended. In contrast to defining a type hierarchy using schema types/notations which then would be required either for us or for the users, the current approach allows the users to use familiar contentType strings such as "image/jpg", instead of image_jpg. -- We are asked to support both xs:base64Binary and xs:hexBinary types. If we were to use type hierarchies, this will require two separate trees. -- The current approach allows us to use accept-params as well as parameters that we find it hard to define using other means, including NOTATION. -- The current approach allows us to use lists and wildcards within one value and refer to the value easily. -- Using a single entity for a reference, namely a QName, attribute, or element is important for our use. The global attributes allow this kind of use. -- It is desirable not to require dependency to XML schema or require XML Schema references in the instance documents. In addition, some members of the wg believe that NOTATION is not widely used and it is felt that retaining the current flexible and extensible approach is more desirable. Therefore, after a long discussion we have decided to close the issue without changing the current architectural approach. We do hope that this email clarifies the intent and the basis/motivation for this decision. We again thank you for participating in the wg meeting in Boston and talking to us. The current updated draft can be found in [5]. Sincerely, --Umit Yalcinalp (On behalf of the WSD wg) [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xml-media-types-20041102/ [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-media-types/2004Nov/0011.h tml [3] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.h tml#x272 [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Mar/att-0021/2005030 4-ws-desc-minutes.html [5] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/media-types/xml-media-t ypes.html
Received on Friday, 18 March 2005 02:31:49 UTC