Lists Home |
Date Index |
> I think you misunderstood my question. Why would it be difficult to
> You said you were trying to make life easier so that people don't have
> to invent new MIME types. But inventing MIME types is easy.
Sure, but specifying how they should be processed may not be. The first
paragraph in my last response talked about this. Specifying some fairly
generic behaviour should be useful for most straightforward integration
> And what would be the downside of just passing your data off as
> If XHTML is *defined* to be extensible then the data is XHTML. What it
> embeds is no more relevant than what it refers to with SRC and HREF
> links. If XHTML was not defined to be extensible then you should invent
> a new MIME type and describe how you are (ab)using the XHTML namespace.
There's different degrees of "extensibility". I think pretty much any
XML is extensible if you only care about well formedness. That's
XHTML's view, at least. I just want to steer clear of that so that
I can keep my rules simple. That doesn't prevent somebody else from
tackling that more difficult task though.
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. firstname.lastname@example.org