RE: Media types

No.

But even if the 'pushback' referred to in that response does not lead to a refusal, what would the point of registering
*/foo+micro+xml be?  The foo+micro part would be overlooked even by an idealized RFC 3023 mime processor
which punted to the +xml portion of the subtype.  If you registered a type=foo parameter,
and a processor did not understand that parameter, you would get micro+xml as a fallback,
and if that didn' work +xml as the fallback, at least that's my interpretation of the idealized situation.

All that said, I've never seen (nor looked for, actually), a processor which supported the +suffix
fallback behaviour.  Browsers don't.

Cheers,
Peter

________________________________
From: Uche Ogbuji [mailto:uche@ogbuji.net]
Sent: September 12, 2012 17:12
To: public-microxml@w3.org
Subject: Re: Media types

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Rushforth, Peter <Peter.Rushforth@nrcan-rncan.gc.ca<mailto:Peter.Rushforth@nrcan-rncan.gc.ca>> wrote:
application/foo+micro+xml will not be recognized as microxml, and such
registrations will be likely be denied, by the sounds of it.

I'm pretty sure I did not read anything nearly so strong from the thread you posted.  Do you have another source for this assertion?


--
Uche Ogbuji                       http://uche.ogbuji.net
Founding Partner, Zepheira        http://zepheira.com
http://wearekin.org
http://www.thenervousbreakdown.com/author/uogbuji/
http://copia.ogbuji.net
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ucheogbuji
http://twitter.com/uogbuji