+1, well-said.
Media types tend to be used for purposes that you aren't planning for
right now...
On 2006/08/23, at 7:16 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
On Aug 23, 2006, at 15:30, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
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.
Which reopens the discussion about whether peeking inside is good
or not, etc. External identification can be useful.
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.
I think that every single damn WG that's defined an XML syntax of
some form (and in some cases WGs that haven't defined any) goes
through this dance. I don't really care either way, but given that:
1) people will keep asking;
2) it costs nothing (even the security section in the registration
can simply say "Just look at the security chapter");
3) conformant processors will naturally understand XBL sent as
application/xml just the same:
it just seem more economical to just add it and consider the matter
closed for all eternity. Besides, you never know what crazy stuff
people will want to do, the extra piece of string could prove useful.
--
Robin Berjon
Senior Research Scientist
Expway, http://expway.com/
--
Mark Nottingham
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
