John Panzer wrote:
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.
Typo: Should have read ...(2) the type is text/xml or text/mumble+xml.
|
- Re: FUBAR (was: Re: APP-Basic - introspection?) John Panzer
-
