RE: Media types and extensibility

["Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Gregorio [mailto:joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 12:41 PM
> To: Dare Obasanjo
> Cc: Mark Baker; Atom-Syntax Syntax
> Subject: Re: Media types and extensibility
> 
> > 
> > So you are asserting that Atom will never need to go past 
> version 1.0? 
> 
> What connection, if any, do you
> see between media type registration and version number?

Mark's original message draws the connection 

'Consider that the 0.3 draft doesn't include support for mandatory
extensions, yet recommends application/atom+xml.  This means that when
confronted with a version of the Atom format that does include mandatory
extensions, a 0.3 agent won't know to fault on one.  A new media type is
required to make that transition.'

Simple translation: The media type does not give enough information to
tell a client whether it supports the format or not. 

For example, what is the media type of an XML 1.1 document? How does a
client that only supports XML 1.0 know from just an XML-based media type
that it actually can't consume the document? 

--
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM 
It takes about a week of treatment to cure a cold. Without treatment, it
takes seven days.        

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.