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

Re: XBL media type?

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:32:16 -0700
Message-Id: <81C43E3A-F4EA-4AE6-B806-023ECFE2C516@yahoo-inc.com>
Cc: public-appformats@w3.org
To: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>

+1, well-said.

Media types tend to be used for purposes that you aren't planning for  
right now...

On 2006/08/23, at 7:16 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:

> 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/

Mark Nottingham
Received on Wednesday, 23 August 2006 18:33:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:50:05 UTC