Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: David LeBlanc <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: John Cowan <email@example.com>, XML Dev <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 07:49:10 -0800
At 10:15 AM 1/15/99 -0500, John Cowan wrote:
>David LeBlanc wrote:
>> I don't agree with the idea that XML is a replacement for ASCII.
>Figuratively, not literally. The idea is that XML is meant to become
>the (near)ubiquitous way of expressing structured text or data, just as
>plain ASCII is the (near)ubiquitous way of expressing plain text
>or data. (But not forever: Unicode plain text rulz!)
>> Neither does "application" imply C, C++, Java or whatever else. In fact, I
>> wonder if "application/xml" is appropriate at all - does "application/RTF"
>> or "application/TROFF" make sense?
>Yes, very much so. Troff source can and should be specified as
>"application/x-troff" and could be registered as "application/troff"
>if anyone wanted to bother. But "text/x-troff" would be reasonable
>too, since much troff source can reasonably read as plain text.
>RTF source is usually too *busy* to be read as plain text, though.
>Anent the "application" top-level type, RFC 2046 saith:
># [...T]ypically either uninterpreted binary data or information to be
># processed by an application. [... E]xpected uses for "application"
># include spreadsheets, data for mail-based scheduling systems, and
># languages for "active" (computational) messaging, and word
># processing formats that are not directly readable.
Ok, thanks for the clarification - I inferred that "application" meant
>John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan email@example.com
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:email@example.com)