Subject: Re: Comments on draft-many-ical-xmldoc-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 13:37:06 GMT

>> <fd>But by placing this overhead on the originator, the recipient can
parse
>> the document once and understand what object handlers it needs to
process
>> the contents of the document.

>No, it can't, because it doesn't know what your NOTATION means.  It needs
a
>MIME type, not a public identifier or a URI (which is what a SYSTEM is
>supposed to be [see section 4.2.2 of the XML spec]--the "Executable Module
>Format" in your example doesn't work).  If you want, you could provide a
MIME
>type in the <attach> tag as a hint so it doesn't have to do a HEAD (or
>whatever) on the URI; but you should not be creating a parallel namespace
for
>content types.

<fd>You have an indication of the notation for the binary content. This is
more than the alternative you offered. You will always have the issue with
implementations that don't understand _all_ possible format types. Yes, our
example was not very compelling. We will beef this up. NOTATION is not
re-eventing content-type namespaces. It is the method for specifying them
in XML 1.0.</fd>

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 16:00:26 +0000

[email-masked] wrote:

> NOTATION is not

If it doesn't specify a MIME type, it is a reinvention, to be avoided for the
same reasons you want to avoid two parallel representations of iCalendar.

--
/=============================================================\
|John Stracke    | My opinions are my own | S/MIME & HTML OK  |
[email-masked]|============================================|
|Chief Scientist | NT's lack of reliability is only surpassed |
|eCal Corp.      |  by its lack of scalability. -- John Kirch |
\=============================================================/