Re: Finishing(!) the XML-tagging discussion

[Graham Klyne <GK@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 02:50 PM 3/20/00 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
> or to put it another way, if we're going to invent a new syntatical
> convention for describing content-type characteristics, let's
> pick one that actually works with content negotiation
> rather than one which requires drastic changes to content
> negotiation frameworks.

> in a sense, it doesn't break anything.  in another sense, it
> creates a new feature of content-type names that can be exploited,
> and people will demand that they be exploited.  so it requires
> changes of existing implementations.  and if the -xml feature catches
> on then it will creep into content-type negotiation schemes.  this is
> not an intended consequence, but it is a likely one.

Your concern here, then, is what people *might* do to abuse the feature in 
future?

Given that the *intent* of the '-xml' seems to be quite benign, and is 
perceived by many to be quite useful, may I suggest that:

(a) the proposal is presented as nothing more than a naming *convention*, 
plastered with health warnings about NOT using it for content negotiation, 
or any purpose other than local identification of XML for possible 
fall-back submission to a generic XML handler, and

(b) introduce at the same time a proposal that will allow people to 
definitively tag XML for the purposes of content negotiation, and refer to 
this proposal from (a).

My thinking is a "carrot and stick" approach to resisting the harmful usage 
that concerns you:  be very clear that bad things will happen if the 
feature is abused, AND provide a mechanism to achieve the desired results 
(for content negotiation, etc.) without incurring the harm.


I think there are two distinct sets of requirements here:

(a) is a local convention that can be used transparently as far as existing 
agents are concerned,

and

(b) relates to new capabilities (hence new/upgraded software) that require 
the active cooperation of two or more communicating parties.

I think much of the present debate arises because these requirements are 
being confused.

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@xxxxxxx)