[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Announcement of an I-D

At 01:46 PM 9/29/99 +0200, Chris Lilley wrote:
>MURATA Makoto wrote:
>> 1. On top of text/xml and application/xml, this I-D further introduces
>> application/xml-dtd.
>> 2. The "*/*-xml" convention is introduced.  Throw a rock on it if you
>OK, so both -xml and xml- are intrduced, with differeing meanings. This
>is fine, but I need to read this ID closely to see what an
>implementation might be expected to infer (or not) on getting a
>foo/bar-xml-baz mimetype. Is this written in XML or not?

I don't think xml- is introduced as a general convention for anything.
xml-dtd can be the form for XML DTD information in large part because DTD
files are not themselves well-formed XML documents.

According to this draft, foo/bar-xml-baz should _not_ be XML, and neither
should foo/xml-bar-baz.  foo/bar-baz-xml should be XML.

>> 4. application/mathml-xml,application/xsl-xml, application/rdf-xml, and
>> are used as examples.  Concerned citizens are invited to send comments.  
>OK, will check exactly what promises image/svg-xml makes (in particular
>regarding XPointer as a fragment identifier)

All suggestions regarding the fragment identifier issue are welcome.  My
personal take is that non-SVG XML could (and in fact would probably have
to) use conventional XPointers to reference _into_ SVG documents, making
the -xml suffix important for identification.  This would not, however,
constrain SVG documents from using their own fragment identifiers to
reference other SVG documents.

This is a critical point that needs more discussion from as many parties as

Simon St.Laurent
XML: A Primer (2nd Ed - September)
Building XML Applications
Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical
Sharing Bandwidth / Cookies