foo/bar and foo/bar-xml

[Tim Bray <tbray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 12:12 PM 3/21/00 -0500, John Cowan wrote:
>I certainly agree that foo/bar and foo/bar-xml should not both exist if
>they are synonymous.  But if the VRML folks find it necessary to abandon
>the name VRML, that ought not to be driven by the adoption of a new
>syntax internally.

I think this isn't as off-topic as it sounds.  X3D is *not* just a 
restatement of VRML in XML syntax, so it really is a new kind of thing
with a new media type.  In fact, the notion of taking an existing 
vocabulary and making no changes to it aside from XML syntax strikes
me as a rare and unusual thing; thus one of the things I *don't* worry
about is the coexistence of foo/bar and foo/bar-xml.

Is XHTML an exception?  I don't think so - the differences between XHTML
and what you can get away with in text/html run surprisingly deep. -Tim

PS: See?  I changed the subject line!  Wow.