Hi Ian,
On 1/5/07, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006, Mark Baker wrote: > > This is a comment against the XBL2 last call WD. > > I believe the spec needs a media type, if only because the TAG > recommends it[1]. > [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/0430-mime I couldn't find a statement in that document saying that the TAG recommends that working groups define new MIME types for their namespace. The document suggests new MIME types should be registered for new _formats_, but XBL re-uses the existing XML format, so that doesn't apply to XBL as far as I can tell.
The previous version of the finding used the term "language"; I'm not sure why it was changed to "format", but I don't recall any discussion which suggested the TAG was ok with "application/xml" for all XML. That finding was authored in response to an issue raised by me on behalf of the XML Protocol WG, asking if/why SOAP needed a SOAP-specific media type. The advice we received was yes, we do. I agree that the change in terminology is a concern though. I suppose the proper thing to do would be for the WG to ask the TAG for clarification.
What would the use cases be for a new MIME type that couldn't be handled by application/xml? (Consider in particular that XBL's processing model is defined in terms of handling any DOM, not in terms of handling HTTP payloads or similar.)
Any use case which follows the findings of the authoritative metadata finding with respect to using external metadata to determine the semantics of the payload (i.e. no sniffing); http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.html Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com
