Re: [xml-dev] Mime type for compound document.

["Stephen Green" <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>]

Hi Dave

Forgive my rant but it has perplexed me for some time why folk
insist on creating more and more MIME types which few systems will
recognize so this is more a quey than an answer of course. But here
goes:

Is it the case then that every time someone creates a new namespace
they have to create a new MIME type to go with it?! Doesn't that rather
damage the whole concept of extensibility in XML? I appreciate some
namespaces are more equalt than others but at what point should a
MIME type be created? Aren't there any general guidelines anywhere?
I came across a similar matter - when does a new namespace merit a
new file extension being registered? We have .xml for most things but
what are the guidelines for whether or not to register a special extension?
Surely there is merit in just using .xml so an application knows it is
XML (if I called an invoice abc.ubl rather than abc.xml the applications
won't know it is XML and probably won't know what ubl is anyway). I
guess the same applies to MIME type. If I send a file as schematron
MIME type then the receiver which doesn't recognise that MIME type
won't recognize it as XML either, surely. So there must a critical mass
point at which there enough apps which would recognize it to warrant
using it. The question is: will that point ever be reached and is it worth
all the pain in the meantime having folk send me files my system doesn't
recognize as either XML nor Schematron.

Best regards

-- 
Stephen Green

Partner
SystML, http://www.systml.co.uk
Tel: +44 (0) 117 9541606

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+22:37 .. and voice

On 06/12/2007, Dave Pawson <davep@dpawson.co.uk> wrote:
> On the dsdl list, a request arose for
> the mime type for a Schematron document.
>
> It appears that for compound documents, no one has
> got to grips with mime types as yet.
> The issue is, as  Makoto MURATA  put it,
>
> A schematron schema can be embedded within NVDL scripts, RELAX NG
> schemas, W3C XML Schema schemas, XProc scripts, and so forth.
>
>
> Ken Holman said, intriguingly,
>
> Hasn't this issue been around since 1999?  I recall the tension
> between the "Internet guys" who believe the MIME type should reveal
> everything without the need to look inside (so
> "application/schematron+xml" or "application/xslt+xml" is necessary)
> and the "XML guys" who believe that XML already has identification
> built in with namespaces when you look inside (so "text/xml" is sufficient).
>
> I don't believe this was every resolved or could be resolved because
> of the intractable positions of those who do not want to look inside
> of the file and those who don't mind doing so.
>
> Do we have both 'internet guys' on this list, as well as
> xml guys (and gals I guess)?
>
>
> Mime type of the outer wrapper?
> Metadata pointing to the inner variants?
> Other options?
>
> Intractable? Doubtful.
> Permathread fodder? Possible.
>
>
>
> regards
>
>
> --
> Dave Pawson
> XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
> http://www.dpawson.co.uk
>