[BXXPwg] Items of WG consensus

Tony Hansen tony@att.com
Sun, 20 Aug 2000 23:26:52 -0400


Marshall Rose wrote:
> 
> 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'm highly in favor of this approach. In an XML protocol I wrote a year
or so ago, we used an encoding='xxx' similarly to enclose arbitrary
data. We also supported quoted-printable and a couple other formats,
which we found extremely useful when the data was almost totally-safe
text. I'd definitely suggest supporting at least quoted-printable
because of its usefulness and ease of implementation.

	Tony Hansen
	tony@att.com