Felix Roethenbacher schrieb:
Andreas Hartmann wrote:
Felix Röthenbacher schrieb:
Andreas Hartmann schrieb:
[…]
Better
<supports>
<mime-type>image/jpg</mime-type>
<mime-type>image/gif</mime-type>
<mime-type>image/png</mime-type>
<mime-type>application/pdf</mime-type>
</supports>
Is the intention of the generic <supports> element to allow for later
additions, like e.g. a maximum content-length value? Otherwise I find
it a bit unusual to use a generic element as the parent of specific
elements. Most schemas would probably use
<mime-types>
<mime-type>image/jpg</mime-type>
<mime-type>image/gif</mime-type>
<mime-type>image/png</mime-type>
<mime-type>application/pdf</mime-type>
</mime-types>
This suggestion comes from the portlet deployment descriptor where they
use the <supports> tag to define the allowed mime-types for a portlet.
Using <supports> makes clear that the following mime-types are
supported.
This sounds reasonable.
If you want to keep it open for later additions it would be better to
use
<supports>
<mime-types>
<mime-type>image/jpg</mime-type>
</mime-types>
<some-addition> ... </some-addition>
</supports>
I'm not sure if this is necessary – the portlet descriptor schema
doesn't use an additional hierarchy either:
<supports>
<mime-type>text/html</mime-type>
<portlet-mode>edit</portlet-mode>
<portlet-mode>help</portlet-mode>
…
</supports>
So I'd be fine with your first suggestion (at the top of this mail). Is
this OK for the others?
-- Andreas
--
Andreas Hartmann, CTO
BeCompany GmbH
http://www.becompany.ch
Tel.: +41 (0) 43 818 57 01
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
