RE: Media types

application/foo+micro+xml will not be recognized as microxml, and such
registrations will be likely be denied, by the sounds of it.

Applications of microxml should thus be registered as application/micro+xml;type=foo
or some such, in order that they be recognized as microxml, which is OK,
since it uses the extensible mechanism of parameters over structured suffixes.

So +1 to application/micro+xml

Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@ccil.org] On Behalf Of John Cowan
> Sent: September 12, 2012 14:56
> To: Rushforth, Peter
> Cc: James Clark; public-microxml@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Media types
> 
> Rushforth, Peter scripsit:
> 
> 
> > Might be wise to assume that stacked extensions will not 
> get (easily)
> > approved, hence microxml might want to split from xml and create its
> > own suffix.
> 
> We could, but it would be wrong, since all MicroXML documents are XML
> documents.  Hence we should use text/micro+xml or 
> application/micro+xml
> for the generic case.  Stacked extensions are explicitly 
> anticipated in
> section A.14 of RFC 3023.
> 
> > My understanding is that what is achieved by suffixes could also be
> > achieved with paramters, so if inheritance from XML is 
> desired it might
> > be reasonable to go with registering a parameter for 
> application/xml,
> 
> Sections A.5 through A.8 explain why that's a bad idea.
> 
> -- 
> John Cowan  cowan@ccil.org  http://ccil.org/~cowan
> And now here I was, in a country where a right to say how the 
> country should
> be governed was restricted to six persons in each thousand of 
> its population.
> For the nine hundred and ninety-four to express 
> dissatisfaction with the
> regnant system and propose to change it, would have made the whole six
> shudder as one man, it would have been so disloyal, so 
> dishonorable, such
> putrid black treason.  --Mark Twain's Connecticut Yankee
>

Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2012 20:18:55 UTC