[BXXPwg] Draft Minutes of last week's meeting

Steve Harris sharris@primus.com
14 Aug 2000 10:07:37 -0700


"Marshall Rose" <mrose+mtr.netnews@dbc.mtview.ca.us> writes:

> this is a pretty cool idea. i think that the profile should specify whether
> the content is going to be base64'd or not. also, if it's just nested XML,
> i'd probably use a CDATA block, e.g.,

[...]

Yes, a CDATA block could be convenient there. The important aspect of
my proposal is that the content model of <start>/<profile> be
#PCDATA:

<!ELEMENT profile (#PCDATA)>

I wasn't sure about whether the actual encoding or format of the data
should be noted extrinsically. My thinking was that a particular
profile would define what it expected to receive, and any peer that
wishes to start a channel with that profile must provide data in the
expected format.

When we're talking about #PCDATA, Base64-encoded bytes look just like
any other text. Why give any special preference to Base64? Why not
just say, "It's opaque to Channel 0."

You commented that you think the idea is cool. Does it take anything
away from your original intention? I wouldn't want to cripple
something essential in BXXP that I haven't seen. This proposal does
make the channel start/accept API easier to craft.

The weirdness around submitting several candidate profiles for a
channel, then trying to figure out which one got accepted, remains. Do
you have any ideas on that one?

-- 
Steven E. Harris        :: sharris   @primus.com
Primus                  :: http://www.primus.com