- From: Corda, Ugo <Ugo.Corda@usa.xerox.com>
- Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 10:09:24 -0700
- To: "'Rich Salz'" <rsalz@zolera.com>
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
In many cases images are much bigger than the associated XML document, and you might not want to base64-encode them (processing time and resulting size). Also, small devices that do not accept images and only deal with text would not need to implement a processor to handle MIME multipart/related or whatever other mechanism is used for attachments. Ugo -----Original Message----- From: Rich Salz [mailto:rsalz@zolera.com] Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 6:18 AM To: Corda, Ugo Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org Subject: Re: Possibility of an XML Document Type > Yes, but I would prefer to reserve that for cases when it's really > necessary, e.g. when the main XML document has image attachments. I don't understand why images are "really necessary" and XML isn't, can you please explain? In general, I prefer attachments because the parsing is more efficient -- I don't have to create an entire string only to (quickly?:) replace it with an XML document. -- Zolera Systems, Your Key to Online Integrity Securing Web services: XML, SOAP, Dig-sig, Encryption http://www.zolera.com
Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 13:09:41 UTC