RE: Media types

At 07:53 PM 1/17/02 -0500, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>On Thu, 2002-01-17 at 18:32, Graham Klyne wrote:
> > Well, we now have ways to express other (non-primary) content types.
> >
> > E.g., per RFC 2912, RFC 2913, ...
> >
> >    Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="break"
> >    Content-features:
> >      (& (Type="text/plain") (Type="image/jpeg") (Type="audio/wav") )
>
>Can we simply say (for an XHTML document also containing SVG, MathML,
>SMIL, and XLink):
>
>Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml
>Content-features: (&
>(xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml")
>(xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg")
>(xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML")
>(xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/SMIL20/")
>(xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink")
>)

Sure... if feature tag xmlns is registered (per RFC 2506).  (Something like 
this is almost anticipated by CC/PP, which mentions a "schema" attribute - 
described in terms of schema identification rather than namespaces).

>If so, then we may already be out of the brush, though my reading of RFC
>2913 suggests that we would need to add xmlns to RFC 3023's existing
>structure.

RFC 2913 and RFC 3023 are almost orthogonal ... there's arguably a very 
small overlap of functionality (between RFC 2912+2913 and RFC 3023), but 
nothing about using RFC 2913 that I can see requires any change to RFC 
3023.  Note that RFC 2913 specifically excludes use of content-type 
parameters, so adding xmlns to RFC 3023 wouldn't change that, and would 
create a more significant overlap.

#g



--------------------------
        __
       /\ \    Graham Klyne
      /  \ \   ([email protected])
     / /\ \ \
    / / /\ \ \
   / / /__\_\ \
  / / /________\
  \/___________/