RE: [xml-dev] Registration status
"Dan Kohn" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.xml-mime |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
In theory, I agree that namespaces are a better dispatch mechanism than MIME types. Now, all we need to do is upgrade the entire installed based of Internet-connected machines that understand MIME, and I'll agree that a MIME registration for backward compatibility is no longer necessary. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is. - Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut - dan -- Dan Kohn <mailto:[email protected]> <http://www.dankohn.com/> <tel:+1-650-327-2600> Essays announced on <mailto:[email protected]> -----Original Message----- From: David Carlisle [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 16:36 To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Registration status > David, as the co-author of RFC 3023, I would appreciate if you would > reread it. We covered these issues in an extensive mailing list > archive, but tried to distill them into appendix A. :-) Yes I will (but I think I'll sleep first, getting late..) > Now, I agree that compound types cannot be handled ideally by MIME, but > the MIME concept of dispatching to the correct application is still > useful. yes but as I mentioned my comments were mainly addressed at mathml+xml (as that was the question that started the thread) given that most mathml lives inside something else, I do now wonder whether it's useful to have any mathml-specific mime type. The email agent dipatching example does suggest (as someone else commented) that having xxx+xml based on the document element is useful. ie xhtml+xml is fine. But that an xhtml+mathml+svg+... document should just be xhtml+xml rather than worrying too much about compound documents. If that's the road we take then mathml+xml is a logical thing to have for those (relatively few) standalone mathml documents, and it probably should be registered anyway, as having examples based on unregistered types is just confusing in the long run. Somehow it just feels wrong. I think it's the idea of registration, given that XML in general and namespaces in particular are expressly designed to allow you to design your own languages without needing to refer to any central authority, the idea of having to register things with anyone (even the good guys in the ietf:-) seems very unnatural. Of course this is really a matter of perception rather than substance. Whilst I can invent a new language in my own namespace and not tell anyone about it, there's not a lot of point unless I only talk to myself.. David _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.