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

Re: Finishing the XML-tagging discussion



At 07:16 PM 3/20/00 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
> Requesting yet again.  Could we please have details of this horrible
> problem inflicted by the -xml suffix?

could we please have details of how conneg expressions or HTTP
Accept headers could be used to say things like
"I accept XML documents"?

Here is a strawman ...


(a) revise RFC 2295 (currently experimental) so that rather than use its own notations for describing resource variants and client features it uses conneg expressions. RFC2295 introduces an "Accept-features:" header that is provided by a client requesting a resource.

(b) register a conneg feature tag to indicate XML content; I would suggest something along the lines of (XML-namespace="<URI>"), where <URI> is an XML namespace identifier, as that would allow negotiation to specific XML applications. A distinguished value, say "*", would be defined to indicate a generic XML handling capability. An empty string could indicate XML handling without recognition of namespaces (i.e. "classic" XML).

(c) use the proposed Content-feature tag for labeling MIME content.

I believe this approach takes far greater account of the way the XML and XML applications are being developed by W3C than simply having a parameter that says "this is XML".

#g

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