Re: Revised Internet-Draft: Media Feature - xmlns

True. However, there are many formats (especially XML-based) which
are neither vendor-specific or 'personal'; instead, the represent
loose consensus among a number of partners or other interested
parties.

These probably fall most accurately under prs, but there are some
(human) implications to 'personal' that seem to make people avoid it
for these uses. Yes, this is largely psychological.

Additionally, there is still a need to have a one-to-one mapping
between media types and namespaces when so desired by the
application. The most effective way to do this IMHO is to include the
namespace URI in the media type as a parameter, rather than forcing
translation between a registered type and a URI (Yes, I'm aware that
there is reasoning behind the cost of registering a media type).

Cheers,


On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 04:43:33PM -0800, ned.freed@mrochek.com wrote:
> > This seems at odds with XML's easy extensibility and the lost
> > overhead of using XML namespaces; to do conneg on any format that I
> > create, I have to write an I-D, get it approved as Informational, and
> > then register it with IANA.
> 
> You need do nothing of the sort. RFC publication and IESG approval is only
> required for things in the IETF tree. Vendor and personal tree entries are as
> simple as filling out a Web form at IANA:
> 
>    http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/mediatypes.pl
> 
> The recent shift from isi.edu to iana.org has caused a lot of delay in
> registration approvals, but that should be done by now.
> 
> 				Ned

-- 
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2002 20:06:29 UTC