- From: Philipp Hoschka <hoschka@yahoo.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 17:20:15 -0700 (PDT)
- To: "Cohen, Aaron M" <aaron.m.cohen@intel.com>, "'thierry michel'" <tmichel@w3.org>, www-smil@w3.org, "'Lloyd.Rutledge@cwi.nl'" <Lloyd.Rutledge@cwi.nl>, Daniel.Veillard@w3.org
- Cc: w3c-xml-linking-wg@w3.org
... > > > - SMIL is not requiring XPointer and is making > heavy use > > of fragment > > > identifiers in URI References to parts of > SMIL documents. > > > Hence it must register its own MimeType and > not be delivered > > > as text/xml nor application/xml. I don't quite understand this. You seem to be saying that it would be wrong to send SMIL documents as text/xml and/or application/xml, because SMIL does not fully use XPointer. This probably also means that it would be wrong to send SVG documents as text/xml; since SVG also does not use full XPointer. I think this is too limiting - there may be cases, e.g. when using a generic XML tool (editor etc.) where it may make sense to send SMIL and SVG documents using the text/xml or application/xml MIME type, since the document is treated as generic XML, and the fact that it is SMIL is immaterial. I don't see the reason to forbid this because SVG and SMIL are not using Xpointer fully - could you explain what would break ? Having said that, SMIL has been using its own MIME type since version 1.0 (application/smil), and there is no intention that SMIL clients will play documents that are marked as text/xml. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. http://im.yahoo.com/
Received on Friday, 20 October 2000 20:20:20 UTC