- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 11:00:41 -0400
- To: public-ietf-w3c@w3.org
murata@hokkaido.email.ne.jp (MURATA Makoto) writes: >On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 13:56:45 -0700 "Roy T. Fielding" ><fielding@apache.org> wrote: > >> As for the +xml types, a more effective mechanism would have been to >> define a major type of xml under the namespace control of W3C, or >> barring that an xml tree (application/xml.soap) which could either >> be assigned to the W3C or at least incorporate the W3C process. That >> would, of course, require an RFC to set up. The +xml suffix seems >> to beg for the most delays. > >Non-W3C organizations (e.g., OASIS and ISO/IEC) create XML-based >languages and they may want to register specialized media types. Thus, >I think the registration process should not be controlled by W3C. I'm not sure what Roy means by "namespace control of W3C" here, and would appreciate clarification. He may be suggesting that no MIME content types beyond application/xml are needed for XML documents, as XML processors can use namespace information to differentiate which application should get which chunk of XML information, and additional information in the MIME content type would be superfluous. While I disagree with this view in the current circumstances, it is certainly coherent - but under no one's control in particular. I'm not sure what the W3C would want to add to the current namespace process, but suspect that "control" would go over badly with the many organizations beyond the W3C which are in the business of creating XML vocabularies for public use. As for this: >> barring that an xml tree (application/xml.soap) which could either >> be assigned to the W3C or at least incorporate the W3C process. It is my understanding that the W3C itself is unwilling to manage directly any kind of kind of registration system, and that URIs are supposed to resolve these kinds of problems without the need for centralized control. >>The convention application/vnd.w3c.*+xml makes much more sense >>to me. To me as well.
Received on Sunday, 14 September 2003 11:00:46 UTC