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

Re: XBL media type?

From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:16:14 +0200
Message-Id: <0CE2E099-C101-4139-AE44-65F68E889223@expway.fr>
Cc: public-appformats@w3.org
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>

On Aug 23, 2006, at 15:30, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> 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.

Which reopens the discussion about whether peeking inside is good or  
not, etc. External identification can be useful.

> 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.

I think that every single damn WG that's defined an XML syntax of  
some form (and in some cases WGs that haven't defined any) goes  
through this dance. I don't really care either way, but given that:

  1) people will keep asking;
  2) it costs nothing (even the security section in the registration  
can simply say "Just look at the security chapter");
  3) conformant processors will naturally understand XBL sent as  
application/xml just the same:

it just seem more economical to just add it and consider the matter  
closed for all eternity. Besides, you never know what crazy stuff  
people will want to do, the extra piece of string could prove useful.

-- 
Robin Berjon
    Senior Research Scientist
    Expway, http://expway.com/
Received on Wednesday, 23 August 2006 14:16:30 GMT

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