At 08:17 AM 3/19/00 -0500, Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu wrote:
If you go the "application/xml; Content-Feature=foobar" route, you're
DONE. You don't have the added support handy, it just drops to
wherever you configured Mozilla to pass the stuff. The grounds that
"its possible" here is that it's tagged as 'application/xml', which
should be sufficient for tagging that it's possible. This is actually
*less* work to make work under Mozilla, at the expense of *not* passing
along a hint to Notepad/XMLSpy/whatever that it's a *FOOBAR* xml, not
just a generic xml.
Rereading this paragraph raises further questions about the value of
Content-Feature in my mind. Less work under Mozilla, but not working with
applications outside of a particular transaction framework (HTTP in this
case) seems like an enormous overall loss to me.
Am I reading this right?
Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
Building XML Applications
Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical
Cookies / Sharing Bandwidth
http://www.simonstl.com