- From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@rbii.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 20:44:54 -0500
- To: www-tag@w3.org
- Cc: ietf-xml-mime@imc.org, mura034@attglobal.net
On Thursday 17 January 2002 06:18 pm, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > > the fact that XML picked a means of labelling content that is > > incompatible with MIME's content-type is hardly MIME's fault. > > I think the mistake is in assigning such messages a type that > implies it should be handled by a generic XML processor. There is > no such thing, even though it is possible to view all XML types via > generic XML tools. A generic XML processor might imply the default for the system.... but I agree with the gist of this. > A more architecturally fitting course of action > would be to create a top-level media type of xml and then have xml/* > subtypes, but for some reason (deployed apps, I presume) the > top-level namespace has been frozen for ages. I think even this is insufficient, which is what Simon is getting at. I might want to say that this document is *both* text/xml and xml/svg, for example, therby saying you can process it either way.
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2002 21:24:30 UTC