[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> > Nothing. That's why I'm using a new media type. Only XML following
> > the dispatch rules I'm devising can use this it. It's basically an
> > easy out for people who don't want to define application/foo+bar+baz+xml
> > types, but it obviously won't work for all integration jobs.
>
> Under what circumstance would it be difficult to define a new
> media-type?
Assuming you mean the difficulty in defining a foo+bar+baz+xml type,
it would be in defining behaviour specific to the interaction of
the foo, bar, and baz types, rather than using the generic behaviour
I'm trying to specify.
See, for example, XHTML+SMIL[1]. It defines some fairly generic
behaviour that could be applied to other types (indeed, XHTML +
Voice[2] reuses much of it).
The biggest change that has to occur for this to be realized is for
schema designers to think about whether their containing elements should
use xs:any (or equivalent). XHTML 1.x doesn't use it at all, so any
compound use of it will always require a new media type (unless XHTML's
user agent conformance rules suffice for processing). Hopefully when
XHTML 2.0 comes out, it will have some "xs:any"s sprinkled around.
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/XHTMLplusSMIL/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml+voice/
MB
--
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
|
