Re: Finishing the XML-tagging discussion

[Chris Lilley <chris@xxxxxx>]

"Simon St.Laurent" wrote:

> 2) People have grown accustomed to the basic top-level types carrying
> meaningful information.  The Content-Feature approach would mean that
> Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) would be application/xml;
> Content-Feature=svg  -- not not image/svg-xml.  The contents of those two
> descriptions are significantly different, though they purport to describe
> the same thing.  This doesn't apply in every case, since a lot of XML
> formats belong in application/, but it applies in a significant number of
> cases.

Good summary, I agree. the existing top-level types are a useful feature.

One alternative - not necessarily one I am advocating, but just listing for
completeness - is to use a similar approach but swapped round:

image/svg;ContentLanguage=xml

(which basically amounts to foo/bar;xml=yes)

--
Chris