[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Wed, 2002-01-23 at 17:33, Mark Baker wrote:
> > > 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.
I don't believe the IETF would permit registration of:
application/xhtml+smil+xml
There was more than enough resistance to +xml the first time around, and
I think consensus was that +xml was the only case for which they would
permit this usage.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com
|
