Content-Document-Type: was (Re: MIME types vs. DOCTYPE)
jborden at mediaone.net
Fri Feb 26 14:29:33 GMT 1999
MURATA Makoto wrote:
> I am a co-author of RFC 2376 (XML media types). I am attaching two
> of my e-mails about text/xml and application/xml.
> I am quite sympathetic to Jonathan, but I do not think that the URI
> of the DTD is always appropiate. Tim's suggestion (a namespace URI plus
> the root element type) sounds very interesting.
I was not suggesting that the URI be the URI of the DTD, rather that this
be a 'standalone' URI in the same fashion of the namespace URI.
This provides the same type of unique document type identification as does
the namespace URI without predicating the existence of a DTD. In some cases
the DTD URI might be appropriate, in other cases a schema URI might be
appropriate, in other cases a uuid.
In your attached e-mails there are several excellent solutions to this
problem in a similar vein. Use of a Content-Type parameter for text/xml and
application/xml has the same expressiveness as a distinct header, and since
we are in reality subtyping the content type this is perhaps more
appropriate, and would easily fit into RFC 2376.
I assume that this parameter could be used with other content-types such as
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev