Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Mark Baker wrote: > > Is this thread drifting toward a discussion of how > > XML infrastructure should evolve to enable component > > support below the level of the plugin? IOW, if what > > is needed is processors, in effect, MS behaviors > > attached through CSS stylesheets work reasonably > > well. My opinion at this time is that using > > namespaces to infer or direct behaviors is overkill > > and more complicated than is needed. > > We're using namespaces as a more granular form of media type. Media > types have served us well so far, and they don't infer any type of > behaviour. Both just assert "this is <some format>", and that can be > used in conjunction with a mapping from <some format> to <some chunk > of software>. I agree. The I-D is fairly straightforward, and as Don Box notes, has been used in a more specific fashion (SOAPHeader). What Simon proposes is a clean general way to attach a URI or set of URIs to a MIME message in a way which is intended to describe the content. > > > Media types are just too coarse grained. They were designed to be this > way because they were usable for any content format, so the content had > to be almost (e.g. charset) entirely opaque. Do you think it would have > been designed differently if the designers knew that there was only one > possible syntax? I do. > > > Are we our own worst enemy for the keep it simple > > requirement? > > If simplicity was our only objective, life would be a bit boring, no? > We can progress *and* do it with simplicity in mind. > Yes, this proposal seems quite straightforward. Jonathan
|
