Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Wed, 2002-01-23 at 17:33, Mark Baker wrote: > > > Nothing. That's why I'm using a new media type. Only XML following > > > the dispatch rules I'm devising can use this it. It's basically an > > > easy out for people who don't want to define application/foo+bar+baz+xml > > > types, but it obviously won't work for all integration jobs. > > > > Under what circumstance would it be difficult to define a new > > media-type? > > Assuming you mean the difficulty in defining a foo+bar+baz+xml type, > it would be in defining behaviour specific to the interaction of > the foo, bar, and baz types, rather than using the generic behaviour > I'm trying to specify. I don't believe the IETF would permit registration of: application/xhtml+smil+xml There was more than enough resistance to +xml the first time around, and I think consensus was that +xml was the only case for which they would permit this usage. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com
|
