On Wed, 2002-04-17 at 16:28, Keith Moore wrote:
Lastly, there's no mention of the RFC 3023 "+xml" suffix convention,
which should at least be mentioned as a possibility for use.
agreed.
And agreed.
I believe
that my first point above highlights a large part of the value of
specific media types (whether +xml is used or not), as the required
dispatch behaviour can be assigned to them.
we need to be careful about how we use the word "dispatch" -
it's used to distinguish different types from one another,
but not to actually specify the processing to be performed.
I agree with Keith on this one. The types identify "what something is",
not "how you should process that something". I'd be strongly opposed to
any attempt to impose a particular style of namespace processing on any
of the types described by RFC 3023 or to +xml generically.
I've not yet gotten around to writing POND (Perversely-Oriented
Namespace-based Datatyping), but believe me, it's coming.
Plus, FWIW, I'm in the "don't use URNs" camp.
nobody's perfect :)
I'm having a really hard time understanding why the IETF is so keen on
inflicting URNs on the world. The best answers I've heard suggest
merely that the IETF isn't to be trusted with URLs, which seems, well,
an extraordinarily weak answer.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com