Re: PaceSimpleContentType

[Eric Scheid <eric.scheid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 15/6/04 1:35 AM, "Ken MacLeod" <ken@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Graham's point is [appears to be] that the above sample has an Atom
> extension called <FlashParams> that apparently a client should "pass
> to" the handler of the content/@src.  How should Atom spec that?  for
> a variety of potential content types and extensions?  Graham's point
> is that X/HTML already does spec that, so why not have the content be
> X/HTML and let *it* link to the flash?

and if it didn't have any params?

e.