RE: Open systems / Freedom ( was RE: The Web as an Application)

In a RESTful system, the (only?) reliable message semantics metadata across servers and clients is the media type.

If you stray outside the media type definition, you are relying on out-of-band semantics.  That might work where you
control the client and the server, but it doesn't scale: application/xml may be a purchase order on my system, but may be a
personal health record in a hospital system.  The only thing those two messages may have in common is
that they have angle brackets.

So anything that implies only what the XML specification implies is not communicating very much to
potential consumers: the least common denominator, as it were.  The suggestion is to add links to that.  It's the web, after all.

Here's another alternative:

Since the definition of xml is separate from the registration of the application/xml media type (from Liam's earlier message),
 what about adding links to the registration only? You don't have to change the definition of xml then, just its definition on the web.

Regards,
Peter




________________________________
From: mca [mailto:mca@amundsen.com]
Sent: September 24, 2013 13:26
To: David Carlisle
Cc: public-xmlhypermedia@w3.org
Subject: Re: Open systems / Freedom ( was RE: The Web as an Application)

registered mime types are important to the web.
working parsers for registered mimetypes are even more important.

the advantage that the XML family has is that it is relativity easy to design and ship your own custom parser (XSLT) with each and every snowflake message design you care to invent.

as long as you only want to speak in XML, all is fine. start using plain text-based formats, JSON-based messages, videos, and other binary messages and suddenly shipping your parser with the message gets a lot harder.

this is all old news.


mca
+1.859.757.1449
skype: mca.amundsen
http://amundsen.com/blog/
http://twitter.com/mamund
https://github.com/mamund
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeamundsen



On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 1:13 PM, David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk<mailto:davidc@nag.co.uk>> wrote:
On 24/09/2013 17:42, Rushforth, Peter wrote:
What's astonishing is how many XML vocabularies rely only on
application/xml on the web.

Why is that surprising at all?

If you have a a vocabulary served as application/xml it can in many
cases just automatically do the right thing, especially if coupled with
an in-document processing instruction such as xml-stylesheet.

If you invent a new xml vocabuary and give it a new mime type, there are
typically few advantages and a massive disadvantage that the default
behaviour for every application is to drop it on the floor as an unknown
mimetype.

We (finally in MathML3, after 15 years of MathML) got round to
registering a mime type for MathML, because some people would find it
useful, but it is of very limited use on the web (most convincing use
case for it is labelling clipboard formats on some operating systems)

David

________________________________________________________________________

The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England
and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is:
Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, United Kingdom.

This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is
powered by MessageLabs. ________________________________________________________________________