- From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 09:32:31 -0800
- To: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
- Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, "Xml-Dist-App@W3. Org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
On Nov 5, 2003, at 12:17 AM, Anish Karmarkar wrote: >> * content encoding - should we have a separate piece of metadata that >> talks about the encoding? In MIME, that's Content-Transfer-Encoding; >> in HTTP it's content-coding. If we don't do this, it bakes base64 in >> as the only option ever (because it's implicit), so it may be >> beneficial to specify something like > > I am not sure I understand, aren't the contents of the EII always > base64Binary? I was actually toying with the idea of having a relationship between the headers in the XML and the headers in MIME, but I've become convinced that this isn't necessary (and actually would be a bad thing). I think we should consider, however, that some Representations that people want to convey with messages may not be base64 encoded. The main use case I can think of would be text-based formats like CSS; it seems extremely un-human-friendly to require these to be base64 encoded when doing so doesn't provide any benefit. -- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2003 12:32:58 UTC