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.

So? This sort of stuff is registered under vnd and prs all the time.

> 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.

I'd have to say "delusional" is closer to the mark. I would be the first to
agree that the names "vendor" and "personal" are far from perfect names. But we
had to pick something, this is what we came up with, at the time nobody was
able to suggest anything better.

Regardless, the bottom line is all the facet name does is tie the collection to
a particular set of registration rules. Fretting about name perception is a
case of the perfect being the enemy of the good enough.

> 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).

Perhaps. However, I was merely pointing out that your assertion that RFC
publication is needed to register a type is just not true.


Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2002 23:36:29 UTC