- From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
- Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 09:23:09 -0500
- To: "MURATA Makoto" <murata@apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp>, <xml-dev@ic.ac.uk>
- Cc: <www-html-editor@w3.org>
MURATA Makoto wrote: > > > I am a co-author of RFC 2376 (XML media types). I am attaching two > of my e-mails about text/xml and application/xml. > > I am quite sympathetic to Jonathan, but I do not think that the URI > of the DTD is always appropiate. Tim's suggestion (a namespace URI plus > the root element type) sounds very interesting. I was not suggesting that the URI be the URI of the DTD, rather that this be a 'standalone' URI in the same fashion of the namespace URI. This provides the same type of unique document type identification as does the namespace URI without predicating the existence of a DTD. In some cases the DTD URI might be appropriate, in other cases a schema URI might be appropriate, in other cases a uuid. In your attached e-mails there are several excellent solutions to this problem in a similar vein. Use of a Content-Type parameter for text/xml and application/xml has the same expressiveness as a distinct header, and since we are in reality subtyping the content type this is perhaps more appropriate, and would easily fit into RFC 2376. I assume that this parameter could be used with other content-types such as text/sgml? Jonathan Borden http://jabr.ne.mediaone.net
Received on Friday, 26 February 1999 09:29:17 UTC