Dean Jackson wrote:
On 23/08/2006, at 8:12 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
Thus I don't think it is necessary for us to define a MIME type beyond
the generic application/xml. XBL will be found in XML sent with all
kinds of MIME types.
I agree with your points.
However, I still think it is worth defining a MIME type for (at least)
the following reasons:
[...]
- it *might* be nice for applications that want to do something special
when coming across content that is marked as XBL. For example, a
hypothetical browser may display XBL files in an interesting way or have
some super cool editing mode. If we only use application/xml then it
would have to sniff.
An document with <xbl xmlns="http://.../xbl";> as its root element will
already provide that functionality much more reliably than the MIME
type. It's the namespace that matters in XML, not the MIME type.
Another reason would be to allow for content negotiation, but that would
only be useful if there were ever another binding language for browsers
to choose from and authors had a reason to provide equivalent bindings
in two different languages.
--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
