On Fri, 7 May 1999, Shane P. McCarron wrote:
So, my question for you all is, would anyone here object to the creation
of an application specific media type text/xhtml, registered by the W3C,
that would be used to announce resources that are within the XHTML
family (as that is defined by the W3C)?
Well, without arguing on merits or needs, like I said, I think the form
needs to be manageble: so application/xml.html (using an XML registration
tree or an xml subtyping mechanism) would a much preferable form.
We should create a media-type name framework in which it is easy for any
existing format to have an XML version (e.g. application/xml.vrml), and
for any ordinary user to be able to read the media type and figure out
what is going on. The trouble with application/xhtml is that is
disguises what is going on: users may think it means experimental HTML,
or they may miss that it is HTML att all.
When a browser does not have a handler registered for a media type, it
asks the users. This gives moderately sophisiticated users the chance to
try some other application: they need to be able to look at the media
type name and make some sense of it. So application/xml.html is better than
application/xhtml, and application/xml.vrml is better than
application/vrxml or application/xvrml (and I think model/xml.vrml is
better than both those).
This is why I think and "xml." prefix (which would probably require an
XML registration tree) and some simple automated registration process (so
that people can have instant access to a name) is the most workable
solution: it seems to fit into MIME specs, works with existing
technology, and provides a nice convention for conveying its meaning to
humans. (People can still register XML media types under IETF,
experimetal or vendor trees, so a registration tree just adds convenience.)
Rick Jelliffe