We have agreed on two points about fallback.
3. Fallback to general-purpose XML applications is not useful.
4. Document-like XML documents can be handled by general-purpose
XML viewers
Other than fallback, are there any reasons for introducing top-level
XML media types? One possible reason is that all subtypes can
share parameters of the top-level media types. Possibilities for
such parameters are as below:
- the version of XML,
- the version of Unicode,
- how the Private Use Area (PUA) of Unicode is used
[Rick Jelliffe wrote: "This also could have bearing on the PUA
(private use area) character problem, and the problem of corporate
character sets (e.g. Hong Kong's GCCS)."]
- which conversion table (Note: for a given CCS, more than one conversion
table may exist),
- which schema language is used (DTD or the upcoming schema language from W3C),
- which stylesheet (XSL, CSS, DSSSL, etc.) is used, and
- other issues mentioned in my mail "List of issues".
Does anybody think that some of them are good enough reasons for introducing
top-level XML media types? (I am just asking.)
Cheers,
Makoto
Fuji Xerox Information Systems
Tel: +81-44-812-7230 Fax: +81-44-812-7231
E-mail: murata(_at_)apsdc(_dot_)ksp(_dot_)fujixerox(_dot_)co(_dot_)jp