xml:content-type=
as a required attribute ... err or perhaps the default is
xml:content-type="application/octet-stream"
another alternative to xml:packed might be
xml:content-encoding="base64" ??
Jonathan Borden
JABR Technology Corporation
mailto:jborden@mediaone.net
>
>
> Suppose I wrote up a NOTE, should occupy less than one page, proposing
> a reserved attribute xml:packed with, for the moment, only two
> allowed values, "none" and "base64". The default value is "none".
> If an element has xml:packed="base64" this means that
>
> (a) the content of the element to which this is attached must be
> pure #PCDATA, no child elements and no references, and
> (b) the content is encoded in base64, leading and trailing spaces allowed
>
> This obviously couldn't retroactively become part of XML 1.0, but
> if it went through a process and became a W3C recommendation, I bet
> every parser author in the world would support it in about 15 minutes.
>
> Base64 (a 4-for-3 encoding) wastes 33%, so I thought about perhaps
> inventing Base128 (8-for-7) or maybe even a higher level to cut down
> wasteage, but Base64 has the advantage that it avoids UTF8/ISO-8859
> confusion and I bet Mr. LZW will eat that 33% anyhow...
>
> I also thought about xml:encoding=, but that conflicts with
> encoding= in the XML declaration in a confusing way.
>
> Are there any gotchas I'm missing? Don't know if I could persuade
> one of the WGs to take it up, but it seems pretty obvious that there
> is not only industry demand but in fact people doing this already, so
> the case is pretty strong I think. -Tim
>
>
>