[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: XML media types revisited

• From: James Robertson <jamesr@s...>
• To: XML-Dev Mailing list <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 11:26:04 +1000

At 10:02 15/01/1999 , Simon St.Laurent wrote:

  | At 10:49 AM 1/15/99 +1000, James Robertson wrote:
  | >Maybe I'm overlooking the obvious, but:
  | >
  | >What distinguishes cml, MathML, etc from any other
  | >DTD?
  | >
  | >ie, if we are looking at xml/mathml, why shouldn't
  | >I expect to have:
  | >
  | >	xml/myml
  | >	xml/theirml
  | >	xml/everyonesml
  | >
  | >That is, if we are using the MIME type to distinguish
  | >between DTDs, won't we need a type for _every_ DTD
  | >that could be used for interchange?
  | 
  | That's fine by me, except that it would need to be:
  | xml/x-myml
  | xml/x-theirml
  | xml/x-everyonesml (or xml/everyonesml if 'everyonesml' was a registered
  | subtype.)

OK, that's fine.

But to rephrase my question:

Who decides which DTDs have sufficient merit/useage/stability/etc
to warrant a registered subtype?

It seems unrealistic to expect IETF to make those sort
of decisions.

Or, to rephrase again:

If I write a new DTD for (say) classifying house bricks,
to be used in the building industry, and I go to to the
IETF, and say:

	Give me a registered subtype!

What should they do and say?

Cheers,

J

-------------------------
James Robertson
Step Two Designs Pty Ltd
SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy
http://www.steptwo.com.au/
jamesr@s...

"Beyond the Idea"
 ACN 081 019 623

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...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML media types revisited
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • Re: XML media types revisited
    • From: James Robertson <jamesr@s...>
  • XML media types revisited
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: XML media types revisited
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML media types revisited
• Next by Date: Re: XML media types revisited
• Previous by thread: Re: XML media types revisited
• Next by thread: Re: XML media types revisited
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread