Re: Finishing the XML-tagging discussion

[Tim Bray <tbray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 11:10 AM 3/20/00 -0800, Marshall Rose wrote:
>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.

I think that's more or less everyone's view.  Hence the reason why a 
top-level xml/ type turns out to be a bad idea.

>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

Once again, no-one seems to disagree. The proposal is 

 image/svg-xml

and I believe this is what SVG plans to file for.

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

The idea is that it is in the general case useful to know whether something's
in XML syntax, regardless of the application & its semantic.  -Tim