W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-appformats@w3.org > August 2006

Re: XBL media type?

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 23:30:29 +1000
Message-ID: <44EC5875.9050600@lachy.id.au>
To: Dean Jackson <dino@w3.org>
CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Mark Baker <mbaker@rim.com>, public-appformats@w3.org

Dean Jackson wrote:
> On 23/08/2006, at 8:12 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> 
>> Thus I don't think it is necessary for us to define a MIME type beyond 
>> the generic application/xml. XBL will be found in XML sent with all 
>> kinds of MIME types.
> 
> I agree with your points.
> 
> However, I still think it is worth defining a MIME type for (at least) 
> the following reasons:
> [...]
> - it *might* be nice for applications that want to do something special 
> when coming across content that is marked as XBL. For example, a 
> hypothetical browser may display XBL files in an interesting way or have 
> some super cool editing mode. If we only use application/xml then it 
> would have to sniff.

An document with <xbl xmlns="http://.../xbl"> as its root element will 
already provide that functionality much more reliably than the MIME 
type.  It's the namespace that matters in XML, not the MIME type.

Another reason would be to allow for content negotiation, but that would 
only be useful if there were ever another binding language for browsers 
to choose from and authors had a reason to provide equivalent bindings 
in two different languages.

-- 
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Wednesday, 23 August 2006 13:32:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:10:20 GMT