Jim,
I see. Actually the current draft now makes sense to me, but your revision
is better.
E.
------------------------------------------
Elliott Bradshaw
Director, Software Engineering
Oak Technology Imaging Group
781 638-7534
"BIGELOW,JIM
(HP-Boise,ex1) To: www-html-editor at w3.org
" cc: xp at pwg.org
<jim.bigelow at h Subject: RE: XP> FW: Last call announcement for
p.com> XHTML Print
Sent by:
owner-xp at pwg.o
rg
07/31/2003
04:53 PM
Elliott,
You wrote:
>> I reviewed the public version and here are a few comments.
>...
>>> 5. Section 2.3.1, "Images" section, fourth bullet. It used
> to say "Image data within the object element need not be
> supported." and now it says "A printer MAY choose to omit
> images referenced by a URI [RFC2396] containing a scheme name
> other than cid [RFC2392] and http [RFC2616] ." I'm confused.
>
The rewording is an attempt to say, in the positive, what URI types must be
supported and by implication that support for the data URI is not required.
Perhaps it should actually say that in the positive :-). For example,
A printer must support images referenced by a URI [RFC2396] containing a
scheme name cid [RFC2392] and http [RFC2616], support for other scheme
names
is optional. However, support for a URI containing the data scheme name
[REF
NEEDED] is not required unless the printer chooses to implement the method
for supporting in-line data given in Appendix B.3.
Jim