"Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
2) People have grown accustomed to the basic top-level types carrying
meaningful information. The Content-Feature approach would mean that
Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) would be application/xml;
Content-Feature=svg -- not not image/svg-xml. The contents of those two
descriptions are significantly different, though they purport to describe
the same thing. This doesn't apply in every case, since a lot of XML
formats belong in application/, but it applies in a significant number of
cases.
Good summary, I agree. the existing top-level types are a useful feature.
One alternative - not necessarily one I am advocating, but just listing for
completeness - is to use a similar approach but swapped round:
image/svg;ContentLanguage=xml
(which basically amounts to foo/bar;xml=yes)
--
Chris