- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 16:10:30 -0700
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@idoox.com>, christopher ferris <chris.ferris@Sun.COM>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 03:53:25PM -0700, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: > I don't actually think this is the issue but whenever somebody > wants to establish a central registry--especially for things that a > *lot* of design work has gone into avoiding central registration, > like is the case for URIs and XML namespaces, I think there should > be a really good reason for doing so. To be quite frank I don't see > that in RFC 3023. Right... but we're not talking about XML namespaces or URIs, we're talking about content-type, which is, for better or worse, based upon a central registry. HTTP uses it, and we're defining a binding to HTTP, so we must deal with that. A quick look at recent W3C TRs [1][2] shows that defining an application-specific content-type for well-known XML formats is not only current practice, but is current practice within the W3C. 1. http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-SVG-20010904/intro.html#MIMEType 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/smil20/smil-modules.html#smilModulesNSSMIL20MimeType -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2001 19:10:32 UTC