- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:32:16 -0700
- To: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Cc: public-appformats@w3.org
+1, well-said. Media types tend to be used for purposes that you aren't planning for right now... On 2006/08/23, at 7:16 AM, Robin Berjon wrote: > > 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/ > > > > -- Mark Nottingham mnot@yahoo-inc.com
Received on Wednesday, 23 August 2006 18:33:14 UTC