- From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:56:12 -0400
- To: "Rushforth, Peter" <Peter.Rushforth@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca>
- Cc: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>, "public-microxml@w3.org" <public-microxml@w3.org>
Rushforth, Peter scripsit: > Might be wise to assume that stacked extensions will not get (easily) > approved, hence microxml might want to split from xml and create its > own suffix. We could, but it would be wrong, since all MicroXML documents are XML documents. Hence we should use text/micro+xml or application/micro+xml for the generic case. Stacked extensions are explicitly anticipated in section A.14 of RFC 3023. > My understanding is that what is achieved by suffixes could also be > achieved with paramters, so if inheritance from XML is desired it might > be reasonable to go with registering a parameter for application/xml, Sections A.5 through A.8 explain why that's a bad idea. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan And now here I was, in a country where a right to say how the country should be governed was restricted to six persons in each thousand of its population. For the nine hundred and ninety-four to express dissatisfaction with the regnant system and propose to change it, would have made the whole six shudder as one man, it would have been so disloyal, so dishonorable, such putrid black treason. --Mark Twain's Connecticut Yankee
Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2012 18:56:38 UTC