Subject: RE: [Simple] Updated XCAP specification

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 19:29:18 -0600

Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:[email-masked]] wrote:

> I also imagine that in many cases, the client is receiving the XML and 
> the root document has no MIME type per se. There are actually relatively 
> few registered XML mime types in the registry, in fact. I suspect most 
> cases, knowing the schema or other forms of XML context is more 
> important. 

Hmmm... you raise an interesting point. I guess to be "complete,"
we would need to include parameters to indicate root type, schema,
and something like an xpath expression to demonstrate where in the
schema the excerpt lives. That seems a bit extreme, so I guess
leaving it off -- for the time being, at least -- is probably okay.

> ...you need to understand the requirements 
> for the problem you are trying to solve. Its not clear to me what cases 
> would benefit from MIME type information as opposed to other XML context.

I can get along with that. If future applications need this (kind of)
information in the future, they can always add parameters to convey
specifically what they need.

/a

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 20:34:38 -0500

> leaving it off -- for the time being, at least -- is probably okay.

Indeed, there is a LOT of context one could define. See:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/CR-xml-fragment-20010212

which defines an entire XML format that can wrap a fragment to convey 
this context.

> specifically what they need.

True.

Thanks,
Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                600 Lanidex Plaza
Chief Technology Officer                    Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
dynamicsoft
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 20:34:38 -0500

True.

Thanks,
Jonathan R.