Re: MPEG asks for MIME review for the MPEG21 file format
Chris Lilley <[email protected]> Sun, 20 May 2007 02:24:11 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.types,gmane.ietf.xml-mime |
|---|---|
| Organization | W3C |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Friday, May 18, 2007, 7:54:32 AM, Anne wrote: AvK> On Fri, 18 May 2007 03:12:09 +0200, Chris Lilley <[email protected]> wrote: >> The successor to RFC 3023 needs to indicate that binary XML which is >> presented as a new encoding (in the xml sense) can use +xml, while other >> binary forms cannot. AvK> You wouldn't be able to still parse the retrieved resource in that case AvK> with a generic XML parser. Wasn't that the whole idea of +xml? Swapping your sentences around: yes, the whole idea of +xml is that you know you can use a generic XML parser. Something that might or might not be xml, therefore should not use +xml. An XML parser must understand UTF-8 and UTF-16 and may understand other encodings. I gather that the Efficient XML folks will declare a new encoding, and parsers which don't know it will not parse it. Same is if I said the encoding was encoding="i-bet-you-never-heard-of-this-one" -- Chris Lilley mailto:[email protected] Interaction Domain Leader Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG