- From: MURATA Makoto <murata@hokkaido.email.ne.jp>
- Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 15:24:08 +0900
- To: public-ietf-w3c@w3.org
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 13:56:45 -0700 "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org> wrote: > As for the +xml types, a more effective mechanism would have been to > define a major type of xml under the namespace control of W3C, or > barring that an xml tree (application/xml.soap) which could either > be assigned to the W3C or at least incorporate the W3C process. > That would, of course, require an RFC to set up. The +xml suffix > seems to beg for the most delays. Non-W3C organizations (e.g., OASIS and ISO/IEC) create XML-based languages and they may want to register specialized media types. Thus, I think the registration process should not be controlled by W3C. The convention application/vnd.w3c.*+xml makes much more sense to me. Cheers, -- MURATA Makoto <murata@hokkaido.email.ne.jp>
Received on Sunday, 14 September 2003 02:28:56 UTC