- From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:16:14 +0200
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: public-appformats@w3.org
On Aug 23, 2006, at 15:30, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> An document with <xbl xmlns="http://.../xbl"> as its root element
> will already provide that functionality much more reliably than the
> MIME type. It's the namespace that matters in XML, not the MIME type.
Which reopens the discussion about whether peeking inside is good or
not, etc. External identification can be useful.
> Another reason would be to allow for content negotiation, but that
> would only be useful if there were ever another binding language
> for browsers to choose from and authors had a reason to provide
> equivalent bindings in two different languages.
I think that every single damn WG that's defined an XML syntax of
some form (and in some cases WGs that haven't defined any) goes
through this dance. I don't really care either way, but given that:
1) people will keep asking;
2) it costs nothing (even the security section in the registration
can simply say "Just look at the security chapter");
3) conformant processors will naturally understand XBL sent as
application/xml just the same:
it just seem more economical to just add it and consider the matter
closed for all eternity. Besides, you never know what crazy stuff
people will want to do, the extra piece of string could prove useful.
--
Robin Berjon
Senior Research Scientist
Expway, http://expway.com/
Received on Wednesday, 23 August 2006 14:16:30 UTC