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

Re: reason for application/iotp-xml (was RE: Registration of MIME med ia type APPLICATION/IOTP)



In message "Re: reason for application/iotp-xml (was RE: Registration of 
  MIME med ia type APPLICATION/IOTP)",
Tim Bray wrote...
 >There's also an argument from principle.  One of the core ideas of XML is to 
 >move past the notion that data should be encoded in a format proprietary 
 >to a product or application.  The idea is that the door should always be 
 >left open for future processing of data in ways that are unpredictable at 
 >the time of creation.  The generalized -xml convention certainly is 
 >consistent with that spirit.

Agreed.

XML is a meta language: XML-based formats can be defined by providing a 
tag-and-attribute inventory on top of XML.  XML is a self-descriptive 
language: any data in any XML-based format can be parsed and further 
processed without any knowledge of a particular tag-and-attribute inventory.
  
The whole point of XML is to make XML-generic processing possible and 
powerful so that development of each XML-based format is easy.  A large 
number of XML software tools (e.g., XML editors or browsers) are designed 
so that they can be used for any tag-and-attribute inventory.  Other than 
IE 5.0, we have XMLSpy, XML Notepad, and so forth.  Generic XML 
processing is the whole point of XML!

In message "Re: reason for application/iotp-xml (was RE: Registration of 
  MIME med ia type APPLICATION/IOTP)",
Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote...

 >And, just to get back to specifics, the author of the IOTP draft said the 
 >other day:
 >
 >>I'm polling the TRADE WG but it is my impression that there is enough
 >>implementation that people would prefer not to change.
 >
 >Not only can we wait for "the next one" on this topic, we have another 
 >example of a group that doesn't feel much inclined towards the utility of 
 >the application/foo-xml solution for their protocol.

Since this issue requires balance of so many things, I do not think that 
we have a thoroughly thougtout example yet.

In message "Re: reason for application/iotp-xml (was RE: Registration of 
  MIME med ia type APPLICATION/IOTP)",
Tim Bray wrote...
 >Having said that, I still have the feeling that if we do all agree that
 >this is a good effect to achieve, there has to be a better way than
 >this -xml convention.  Media types have been working well in a 2-part
 >structure for a long time, going to a 2-and-a-half parts smells funny.
 >But I haven't thought of anything better. -Tim

Nobody really likes the -xml convention.  But we have already investigated 
other proposals and none of them appear have been accepted.

Cheers,


----
MURATA Makoto  muraw3c@xxxxxxxxxxxxx