Re: Media types

/ "Steven Pemberton" <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl> was heard to say:
[...]
| But the message from Norman Walsh has truly warmed my heart::
|
|> From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
|
|> In general, is there really any value in declaring specific media
|> types for XML vocabularies?
|>
|> Imagine that I've got text/foo+xml and text/bar+xml. If I send a
|> document that's just 'foo' or just 'bar', those may have value. But as
|> soon as I start mixing foo and bar together, I don't see that there's
|> any right answer as to what media type I should use.
|
| Precisely what we were saying three years ago! But why am I so pleased?
| Because it was exactly Sun's outspoken and impassioned attack on our
| position (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/1999JulSep/0020)
| that forced us to drop all mention of media types from XHTML 1.0, and to ask

Hmmm. I'm not sure if I should be embarrassed or not :-)

I'll review Jon's original message more carefully, but "off the cuff",
I'll note that what was true "at the present stage of XML evolution"
in 1999 may no longer be true today.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM   | We make out of the quarrel with others,
XML Standards Engineer | rhetoric, but out of the quarrel with
XML Technology Center  | ourselves, poetry.--W. B. Yeats
Sun Microsystems, Inc. |

Received on Monday, 28 January 2002 10:35:18 UTC