At 11:25 AM 3/19/00 -0500, you wrote:
I haven't been following this discussion too closely, but has a
top-level xml type been positively ruled out for any particular
reason? e.g. xml/rdf, xml/rss, xml/xhtml, etc. It seems to me that
if we're going to so much trouble to make sure that generic XML
processors will recognize this with suffixes and so forth, maybe what
we really have is a different top-level type? The argument here would
that not all XML (e.g. SVG) is really text.
I've written a brief summary of how we got here, archived at:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/mail-archive/msg00345.html
For the top-level media types discussion, you might want to see the threads
listed below. The top-level XML media type discussion sort of winds around
and through them, without clear resolution in a single thread,
unfortunately, but these are probably at least a useful set of threads to
explore.
Parameters for top-level XML media types?
http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/mail-archive/threads.html#00075
Top-level media types desirable?
http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/mail-archive/threads.html#00100
Perhaps we need an XML registration tree
http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/mail-archive/threads.html#00101
Application-specific media types
http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/mail-archive/threads.html#00111
Negotiated Content Delivery: Maximizing Information
http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/mail-archive/threads.html#00121
Using CONNEG instead of MIME types for compound types & references
http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/mail-archive/threads.html#00133
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