Re: FUBAR (was: Re: APP-Basic - introspection?)

[John Panzer]

Eric Scheid wrote: On 27/10/05 3:28 AM, "Luke Arno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The XHTML based introspection document could be served with application/x-atom-introspection+xml. It *is* an XML format. What will browsers do with that? The touted benefit of XOXO over a custom XML format is that the semantic listing can be displayed in a human readable manner, but serving it with some wild MIME type kills that benefit. I suppose we could insert an XML style sheet thing, the same way we make Atom/RSS feeds human readable in browsers ... but we could also do that with any XML, so where's the benefit to using xhtml/XOXO? You can insert an XML style sheet, but then you must use the MIME type text/html+xml rather than application/foobar+xml.  If you use only application/foobar+xml, browsers DO NOT attempt to display the content, but instead prompt for a helper application, save to disk, or similar behavior. Which is currently a major issue hindering the adoption of feeds. So XSLT is fine, but it does not help with the issue at hand in this particular paragraph, which is MIME type based dispatching.  Here's my mental map of the situation, which should be in a 2x2 matrix but that's too difficult to write: Browser display: Microformat: Displays in browser natively and nicely, as long as the type is text/html+xml. Custom XML: Displays in browser natively and nicely, as long as (1) there is an appropriate XLST specified; (2) the type is text/html+xml. Dispatching: Microformat: Can be dispatched by MIME type, as long as the type is application/mumble. Custom XML: Can be dispatched by MIME type, as long as the type is application/mumble as opposed to text/xml. Not a huge difference there, IMHO. -John