On Thu, 2002-01-17 at 19:08, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 07:31:10PM -0500, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
On Thu, 2002-01-17 at 18:18, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I think the mistake is in assigning such messages a type that implies
it should be handled by a generic XML processor. There is no such thing,
No such thing? There are all kinds of processing gidgets and storage
systems that work on XML generically. You might want to choose more
precise language.
There are all types of procesing gadgets and storage systems that work on
bytes generically. If that was a useful distinction at the message level
then there wouldn't have been any need for media types.
Sure. But I hope you've noticed that XML is perhaps slightly more than
bytes - and perhaps even a "useful distinction at the message level".
If not, I'm not sure I really want to send my nouns to your limited set
of verbs.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com