Closing Issue 507 ( was: comments about the examples in http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-xop10-20040826/ )

Dear Sir,

You raised an issue[1] regarding the examples in the XOP specification. The XMLP WG considered your comment and have added the following text to the description of the examples:

"Note also that the sample base64 data is smaller than would be typical and the binary octets are not shown; in practice, the optimized form is likely to be much smaller than the original." 

We trust this addresses your concern,

Regards

Martin Gudgin
For the XMLP WG

[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-cr-issues.html#x507


> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmlp-comments-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:xmlp-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Frank 
> Yung-Fong Tang
> Sent: 08 October 2004 19:31
> To: xmlp-comments@w3.org
> Subject: comments about the examples in 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-xop10-20040826/

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The two examples in session "1.2 Example" show the one that Prior to
> the XOP processing "look" shorter than the one apply XOP processing.
> It is hard for reader to understand why using the XOP mean "more
> efficiently serializing XML Infosets" if you show the one apply XOP is
> LONGER in the example. (I understand what you mean there, but at frist
> glance, the example show reader, the one prior tot he XOP is "more
> efficiently serializing".
> Basically, it is comparing Apple to Orange because the first one in
> the example does not include HTTP header at all. To make it a fair
> compasion could be done by replacing (or adding) the one which include
> HTTP header but without XOP processing there.
> -- 
> Frank Yung-Fong Tang
> 譚永鋒
> Îñţérñåţîöñåļîžåţîöñ Šýšţém Årçĥîţéçţ
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 15 October 2004 11:56:02 UTC