Subject: RE: Support for HTML in packaged content.

From: David Burdett <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 09:39:23 -0000

I've taken Don's comments on board and updated text is included below.

David
UPDATED TEXT
============
The packaged content may contain HTML. In this case the following
conventions are followed:
*	references to any documents, images or other things, such as sounds or
web pages, which can affect the recipient's understanding of the data
which is being packaged must refer to other Packaged Elements contained
within the same parent element, e.g. an Order Description
*	if more than one Packaged Content element is included within a parent
element in order to meet the previous requirement, then the Name
attribute of the top level Packaged Content from which references to all
other Packaged Elements can be determined, should have a value of Main
*	relative references to other documents, images, etc. from one Packaged
Content element to another are realised by setting the value of the
relative reference to the Name attribute of another Packaged Content
element at the same level and within the same parent element

If the above conventions are not followed by, for example, including
external references, then the recipient of the HTML should be informed.

[Note]	As an implementation guideline the values of the Name Attributes
allocated to Packaged Content elements should make it possible to
extract each Packaged Content into a directory and then display the HTML
directly
[Note End]	 

>----------
>From: 	Donald E. Eastlake 3rd[SMTP:[email-masked]]
>Sent: 	24 February 1999 13:32
>To: 	David Burdett
>Cc: 	'Ietf Trade WG'
>Subject: 	Re: Support for HTML in packaged content. 
>
>I think something like this is a good idea.  Sorry I forgot to mention it in
>my note about Florida.  See comments below.
>
>From:  David Burdett <[email-masked]>
>Message-ID:
><c=GB%a=_%p=Mondex_Internati%l=[email-masked]
>ndex.com>
>To:  "'Ietf Trade WG'" <[email-masked]>
>Date:  Tue, 23 Feb 1999 18:57:52 -0000
>
>>One of the suggestions which came out of the meeting in Florida, was the
>>support for HTML for use with Order Descriptions, Payment Notes and
>>Delivery Notes, particularly since the both Hitachi and RBC had used
>>HTML rather than Plain Text. It this therefore proposed that the
>>following is included in the spec.
>>
>>Comments?
>>
>>David
>>Support for HTML in Packaged Content
>>============================
>>The packaged content may contain HTML. In this case the following
>>conventions are followed:
>>*	there should be only one top level Packaged Content element containing
> HTML
>>with its Name attribute set to Main. This document should contain either
>>text, or references to images.
>
>While it is best for the main packaged content to have the name Main, if
>there is only one packaged content, the recevier should interpret that
>as the main one.
>
>The document should contain HTML and may have external references to
>images or other things (sounds, web pages).  But if those things
>effect what the user is agreeing to, then they must be in other
>packaged contents in the same component and referenced with relative
>URLs or the like.
>
>>*	images are incorporated in a document using links using relative
>>references of the form "img source=xxxx.gif" where "xxxx.gif" matches
>>the Name attribute of another Packaged Content element at the same level
>>and within the same parent element, e.g. an Order Description
>
>Well, .jpg should be acceptable also.  In fact, I'm not sure why we
>would want to police the suffixes.  The point is that it should be a 
>workable implementation to write the other packaged contents out as
>temporary files and then run the HTML, with some safety checks, in
>the context of that directory.
>
>>*	no text should be included as images for any information which is
>>important to the user's understanding of the document, e.g. text in
>>logos would be allowable 
>
>If the images are included locally in other packaged contents than the
>HTML, I don't see a need for this restrction.  And, in any case, there
>is no way to automatically enfore it making it impossible to warn the user
>if it has been violated.
>
>>If the above conventions are not followed by, for example, including
>>external references, then the recipient of the HTML should be informed.
>
>>>Mondex International Limited
>>mailto:<[email-masked]>
>>>US Advanced Technology Office: 111 Pine St, 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA
>>>94111
>>Tel/Voicemail: +1 415 645 6973	Fax: +1 415 956 9370
>
>Thanks,
>Donald
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Message addressed to: [email-masked]
>Archive available at: http://www.elistx.com/archives/ietf-trade/
>To (un)subscribe send a message with "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the
>body to: [email-masked]
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message addressed to: [email-masked]
Archive available at: http://www.elistx.com/archives/ietf-trade/
To (un)subscribe send a message with "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the
body to: [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 11:12:04 -0500

Looks good to me.

Thanks,
Donald

Donald E. Eastlake, 3rd
17 Skyline Drive, Hawthorne, NY 10532 USA
[email-masked]   tel: 1-914-784-7913, fax: 1-914-784-3833
Notes: Donald Eastlake/Hawthorne/IBM@IBMUS

home: 65 Shindegan Hill Road, RR#1, Carmel, NY 10512 USA
[email-masked]   tel: 1-914-276-2668

David Burdett <[email-masked]> on 02/25/99 04:39:23 AM

To:   "'Don Eastlake'" <[email-masked]>
cc:   "'Ietf Trade WG'" <[email-masked]> (bcc: Donald
      Eastlake/Hawthorne/IBM)
Subject:  RE: Support for HTML in packaged content.

David
UPDATED TEXT
============

---

From: "Smith, Chris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:39:00 -0500

The only minor quibble is that requiring the most important one to be 
set to 'main'  potentially interferes with the relative references. It 
makes it illegal to have a relative reference of the form <img 
src="main"> because that would require a packaged content with the name 
'main' - oops, see the problem? And, yes, you can get by without the 
extensions - see below.

I'd be more in favor of requiring that the initial one be <Name=""> - 
that allows all relative references to have a name - and since any name 
is different than no name, there are no collisions.

There is an additional small problem. The packaged contents should 
likely be marked as "MIME" or "MIME:something", since it isn't really 
platform independent to determine types solely by file extension. The 
proper way is always by using the MIME type - some sites function 
without any extensions at all, and just report mime types. This is not 
essential, though. As long as the refs are to names, they should be OK.

(As I see it, the likely implementation would be:
    create a temporary directory or folder, and in it:
    save Name=""    Content="HTML"  as H992543  (a temporary name)
    save Name="one" Content="MIME:image/gif" as   one
    start a browser or browse component pointing to H992543 

Even without any extensions, this should work. I've done one simply test 
so far.)

There are still some oddities - it makes sense to warn implementors that 
there should be no *required* external components. In addition, a really 
conservative implementation would actually add the extensions, and 
rewrite the HTML to include them. (It's a lot of work, but a really 
friendly wallet might do it). Of course, such a wallet could also 
eliminate or warn about external content. (Sounds like an opportunity 
for differentiation....)

In general, we should likely make some comment about references outside 
the overall packaged content. I can see some holes where what is given 
is HTML - with a <META> tag specifying Refresh, that takes the user's 
browser off to somewhere completely different. If it's a clickable link, 
then you really can't completely restrict it, because that is a 
legitimate use - the Offer Response may include a definitive name for a 
product, and include a link to detailed product specifications.

Once inside the HTML, things like this will be very hard to restrict.

______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: RE: Support for HTML in packaged content.
Author:  "David Burdett" [SMTP:[email-masked]] at Internet
Date:    1999-02-25 04:39

David
UPDATED TEXT
============

---

From: David Burdett <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 18:41:15 -0000

A few comments below.

David

>----------
>From: 	Smith, Chris[SMTP:[email-masked]]
>Sent: 	25 February 1999 09:39
>To: 	David Burdett; "'Don Eastlake'" 
>Cc: 	"'Ietf Trade WG'" 
*** The whole idea is that the the packaged content with name="main"
should not be referred to by the HTML in any other packaged content
within the same parent element since it is effectively the "top level"
packaged content from which all others are derived.***
>essential, though. As long as the refs are to names, they should be OK.
*** I agree that requiring all contents to be MIME is a good idea ...
I'll include it ***
>Once inside the HTML, things like this will be very hard to restrict.
*** I agree so perhaps we recommend that software generates warnings ***