W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-smil@w3.org > January to March 2000

deprecate application/smil ? (was: Re: request for application/smil)

From: Philipp Hoschka <ph@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 11:43:07 +0100
Message-ID: <388D7E3B.F220400C@w3.org>
To: Dmitry Beransky <dberansky@ucsd.edu>
CC: www-smil@w3.org

I am personally still not sure that deprecating application/smil is 
a viable option given the installed base, and that this MIME type 
has been chosen by consensus a couple of years ago. I have the 
feeling that we can move to application/smil-xml once Makoto's 
proposal has actually achieved standards status, and the developments
you predict in your message below have actually happened. That would be
a seperate MIME type registration.

However, I would be interested in comments by implementors on this,
before moving on:
- Should we not register application/smil, and move to
right away ? 
- Do other people believe that sticking with application/smil
will "seriously hurt SMIL's usefulness in the future", given the
below ?


Dmitry Beransky a écrit :
> Phillip,
> I saw the thread on ietf-xml-mime [1] in which you discuss SMIL's MIME type
> with Makoto Murata.  While I understand your reasoning, I still think it a
> bad idea to not to push for a more complaint MIME type.
> I'm currently writing a generic XML processor capable of serving and
> updating arbitrary portions of an XML tree (with complete locking
> capabilities, etc.).  I pretty much would like my server to work with any
> XML file, but if we continue the trend that SMIL is setting, the only way I
> can make sure I can handle an arbitrary XML file is by enumerating all
> possible MIME types.  This is not a scalable solution.
> As XML matures, I can see an increasing number of applications that
> streamline storage/retrieval of XML-based documents.  As soon as XML QL
> group is done with its work, we will also see a surge of XML
> databases.  All these applications will rely on MIME types to recognize XML
> documents.
> While keeping SMIL's type as application/smil will satisfy most people's
> current needs, I think it will seriously hurt SMIL's usefulness in the
> future, especially in high production environments where batch processing
> is a must.
> Regardless of whether Makoto Murata's proposal [2] shall be finalized or
> not, IMHO it is clear that there will be a standard mechanism in practice
> for assigning mime types to XML based documents.  I think that your
> proposal should deprecate application/smil in favor of such a
> mechanism.  This way, SMIL tool developers will have enough time to adjust
> and, hopefully, we can have a smooth transition from application/smil to
> applications/smil-xml or whatever other recommendation ietf-xml-mime WG
> will come up with.
> Best regards
> Dmitry Beransky
> [1] http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/mail-archive/threads.html#00315
> [2] http://www.imc.org/draft-murata-xml
Received on Tuesday, 25 January 2000 05:44:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:34:22 UTC