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

Re: Finishing the XML-tagging discussion



> I really don't like having a separate label for this.  Anytime you
> have two different labels for the same thing, you should be wary,
> because it's inevitable that the two labels will get out of sync.
> This has far greater potential for silly states than the concerns
> that Ned expressed about a separate content-type parameter.

The problem is that the only way you can avoid having a separate tag in
feature expressions is to make the feature expression label the _only_ label
saying this. That's just the nature of the beast. Your parameter proposal
ends up needing a separate feature expression tag, just as the suffix
proposal does.

> Also, all of the deployment arguments about a separate
> content-type parameter are at least as applicable for
> a separate content-feature header - if composers can't even
> add a parameter to the content-type line, how likely is it that
> they can reliably add a completely separate header?

And this is exactly why having only the feature expression label isn't
enough -- it doesn't solve the immediate problem for anyone.

				Ned