W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2002

RE: Media types

From: Mike Dierken <mike@dataconcert.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 10:48:16 -0800
Message-ID: <2AE31649CF989F4FB354F6D95EB0CE6E4D6744@xmlfmail.xmlfund.com>
To: www-tag@w3.org, ietf-xml-mime@imc.org


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org] 
> 
[...]

> I agree that media types aren't suitable for multi-namespaced 
> documents.
> That's why I'm all for making the transition from media types to
> namespaces with either vanilla "application/xml", or adorned with the
> root namespace.

Does a namespace alone indicate the semantic meaning of an XML document? 
Is it 'enough' of a hint to do useful things?
Or do you need the name of the root element as well?

Would schema+rootElement be a better alternative?
Would that sufficiently identify the 'model' of the message content?
Could XML documents without schema use namespace in place of schema
reference?

Is there a more general idea of 'content-model' that might apply to multiple
content-type representations?

Example:

Content-Type: application/xml
Content-Model: http://www.w3.org/2001/12/soap-envelope#Envelope

and

Content-Type: application/x-java-serialized-object
Content-Model: java:org.apache.sample.user.profile



Mike
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2002 13:49:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:03 GMT