Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Simon St.Laurent wrote: > Your arbitrary level proposal is quite reasonable, though I suspect that > that would require considerably more development (through the full IETF > process) than just adding a new top-level type. Either way requires a standards-track RFC. The trouble is that XML just isn't a content type analogous to "text", "video", "image", "audio", "model", etc: it's a format, or rather a metaformat. Content-types are supposed to be named based on what they are good for, rather than what the details of the internal format are. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@c... You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn. You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn. Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5) xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
