Re: Media types

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Rushforth, Peter <
Peter.Rushforth@nrcan-rncan.gc.ca> wrote:

> **
> No.
>
> But even if the 'pushback' referred to in that response does not lead to a
> refusal, what would the point of registering
> */foo+micro+xml be?  The foo+micro part would be overlooked even by an
> idealized RFC 3023 mime processor
> which punted to the +xml portion of the subtype.  If you registered a
> type=foo parameter,
> and a processor did not understand that parameter, you would get micro+xml
> as a fallback,
> and if that didn' work +xml as the fallback, at least that's my
> interpretation of the idealized situation.
>
> All that said, I've never seen (nor looked for, actually), a processor
> which supported the +suffix
> fallback behaviour.  Browsers don't.
>

I agree with this last bit, but I also don't think it says anything about
how we should standardize.  A fallback to "application/i-can't-handle-this"
is the same as it would be under the different schemes you have proposed,
so we might as well utilize the best engineering we can in the spec .
 There is nothing wrong with the *user* choosing to just use
application/xml for now, to suit present-day processors, because it would
be technically correct.  The microxml forms of media type would be one for
the future no matter how you slice it.


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                       http://uche.ogbuji.net
Founding Partner, Zepheira        http://zepheira.com
http://wearekin.org
http://www.thenervousbreakdown.com/author/uogbuji/
http://copia.ogbuji.net
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ucheogbuji
http://twitter.com/uogbuji