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

Re: Finishing the XML-tagging discussion



At 08:17 AM 3/19/00 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote:
>If you go the "application/xml; Content-Feature=foobar" route, you're
>DONE.  You don't have the added support handy, it just drops to
>wherever you configured Mozilla to pass the stuff.  The grounds that
>"its possible" here is that it's tagged as 'application/xml', which
>should be sufficient for tagging that it's possible.  This is actually
>*less* work to make work under Mozilla, at the expense of *not* passing
>along a hint to Notepad/XMLSpy/whatever that it's a *FOOBAR* xml, not
>just a generic xml.

Rereading this paragraph raises further questions about the value of
Content-Feature in my mind.  Less work under Mozilla, but not working with
applications outside of a particular transaction framework (HTTP in this
case) seems like an enormous overall loss to me.

Am I reading this right?

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
Building XML Applications
Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical
Cookies / Sharing Bandwidth
http://www.simonstl.com