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

Re: Finishing the XML-tagging discussion



> > suppose we were just to have something like:
>
> >     Content-type: image/svg; representation="xml"
>
> > where "representation" is just a plain old MIME parameter.
>
> > would you object to something along these lines?
>
> Yes. Most of the problems I have with global parameter still apply to this
> usage.
>
> If we absolutely have to do this with a separate piece of information, I
would
> opt for a content-feature tag. That way there's a clear delineation
between
> when feature information is or is not present, and we don't mess up MIME
> parameter space. And we need the feature tag anyway for negotiation
purposes.

hmmm.  my view of the example above is that XML is being used as the syntax
but the semantics of the blob being passed are still SVG semantics.

at the risk of seeming insensitive with the exception of "text/xml", i would
never expect to see a subtype of "xml" for any media type. of course, taking
that line, i suppose that the example above should simply be

    image/svg

and that the processing element for that application should already know the
possible syntaxes that it could encounter.

/mtr