[BXXPwg] Items of WG consensus

Marshall Rose mrose+mtr.netnews@dbc.mtview.ca.us
Sun, 20 Aug 2000 18:13:09 -0700


> There were at least two of us with a concern about piggyback data in
> its current form.  If Marshall is okay with changing the piggyback
> data from ANY to PCDATA and no one has an objection to that, then I
> think that would address the concern.

there are several possibilities.

first, decide whether XML-based channels get to use XML's nesting for
piggybacks. (the way the spec does it now). i don't think this is hard to
implement, and i gave an example how to do it, but steve harris says it's
hard to implement.

if we keep nesting for XML-based channels, then the question is what to do
for non-XML channels. you can certainly use PCDATA (a subset of ANY) for
this purpose. the decision though is how to encode what goes there, since
XML doesn't allow you to pass all octet values.

if we get rid of nesting for XML-based channels, then we can use the same
solution for all channels. in that case, probably the easiest solution is to
add an 'encoding' attribute to the profile element, e.g.,

<start number='1'>
<profile uri='...' encoding='base64'> 012d...=</profile>
</start>

<start number='1'>
<profile uri='..'>&lt;foo /&gt;</profile>
</start>

<start number='1'>
<profile uri='...'><![CDATA[<foo />]]></profile>
</start>

the key thing here is that everything is PCDATA, but maybe base64 encoded if
if contains "funny" characters.

i would still prefer to use XML's natural nesting abilities for XML-based
channels, though i can see the appeal of having one way of handling both.

/mtr