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

Re: XBL media type?

From: Mark Baker <mbaker@rim.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 10:15:16 -0400
Message-ID: <FA2B35103206914F87790A14F7BA415517BD545F@XCL01YOW.rim.net>
To: <art.barstow@nokia.com>, <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: <public-appformats@w3.org>

I'm happy to, but it sounds like we've got to first figure out whether we're using the old or new registration procedures as described here;

http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype

Ian suggests using the old process because the spec "isn't only a W3C spec", but I don't understand what that means.  Will the W3C not have change control?

Mark.

--
Mark Baker
Manager, Standards
Research in Motion Ltd.
(M) +1.613.301.5470

----- Original Message -----
From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
To: ext Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: public-appformats@w3.org <public-appformats@w3.org>
Sent: Wed Aug 23 17:12:00 2006
Subject: Re: XBL media type?

Hi Mark,

I agree such a spec would be useful and support the WAF WG creating  
it. Therefore, in the vain of "no good deed goes unpunished", would  
you be willing to create the spec you propose?

Regards,

Art Barstow
---


On Aug 23, 2006, at 12:08 PM, ext Mark Baker wrote:

>
> On 8/23/06, Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr> 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.
>
> Right.  But more than "useful", I'd say.  It's the only way I know of
> to separate the concerns of document data and metadata.  Conflating
> the two, as assuming the namespace of the root element is special
> does, guarantees a) security problems (the usual ones inherrent in
> "sniffing"), b) performance problems (if the payload is encrypted,
> say), c) incompatibility with deployed tools and software, and d)
> prevents XML schema designers from using the root element as they see
> fit (as XSLT and RDF/XML do).
>
> But I admit that this practice is becoming widespread, so I'm not
> going to argue that we outlaw it.  Instead I'll just argue that we
> need to provide the tools necessary for those that wish to work within
> the existing constraints of Web architecture.
>
>> 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.
>
> Yup! 8-)
>
> Mark.
>





---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
Received on Thursday, 24 August 2006 14:15:29 GMT

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