Re: Need an XBL media type

Hi Ian,

On 1/5/07, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Nov 2006, Mark Baker wrote:
> >
> > This is a comment against the XBL2 last call WD.
> >
> > I believe the spec needs a media type, if only because the TAG
> > recommends it[1].
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/0430-mime
>
> I couldn't find a statement in that document saying that the TAG
> recommends that working groups define new MIME types for their namespace.
> The document suggests new MIME types should be registered for new
> _formats_, but XBL re-uses the existing XML format, so that doesn't apply
> to XBL as far as I can tell.

The previous version of the finding used the term "language"; I'm not
sure why it was changed to "format", but I don't recall any discussion
which suggested the TAG was ok with "application/xml" for all XML.

That finding was authored in response to an issue raised by me on
behalf of the XML Protocol WG, asking if/why SOAP needed a
SOAP-specific media type.  The advice we received was yes, we do.

I agree that the change in terminology is a concern though.  I suppose
the proper thing to do would be for the WG to ask the TAG for
clarification.

> What would the use cases be for a new MIME type that couldn't be handled
> by application/xml? (Consider in particular that XBL's processing model is
> defined in terms of handling any DOM, not in terms of handling HTTP
> payloads or similar.)

Any use case which follows the findings of the authoritative metadata
finding with respect to using external metadata to determine the
semantics of the payload (i.e. no sniffing);

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.html

Mark.
-- 
Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.         http://www.markbaker.ca
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies  http://www.coactus.com

Received on Friday, 12 January 2007 21:18:34 UTC