Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Simon St.Laurent wrote: > After pondering RDDL and data types yesterday, I'm now pondering RDDL and > MIME types. > > Namespace URIs are identifiers used inside of documents, but it seems > reasonable that they could become identifiers used earlier in the content > negotiation process, much as MIME types are today. Putting RDDL documents > at the ends of those URIs would give software and human users a chance to > make a more informed choice about what information they'd be receiving and > how to process it. > > It also struck me that RDDL could be used to describe non-XML formats just > as easily as XML, making it a plausible replacement (not that it will > happen in my lifetime) for the MIME type registration process and the RFCs > which describe MIME types. Right. Whether the RDDL indirection happens on the client or server is a matter of software and protocols. It would be straightforward to use the HTTP extension framework and pass HTTP client headers (either/and) RDDL-Nature: uri RDDL-Purpose: uri From which server side code could extract the matching resource from a RDDL document and return that resource in the HTTP response. > > Maybe I've just thought too hard, but this seems like a reasonable path > forward for supporting the ever-growing number of XML document types in an > unconstrained but useful fashion. > Now that text/xml and application/xml are defined, we can define document types by (for example) the namespace URI of the root element (RDDL Nature) -Jonathan
|
