Martin Duerst wrote: > James M Snell wrote: >> I think atom.entry and atom-entry are equally ugly; atom.entry would, >> however, appear to be more consistent with typical mime conventions. > > The dot is used for prefixes like vnd. (vendor) and so on. > In the case of atom entries, atom-entry is more in line with > the convention in other types.
Right. Please drop the (dot-separated) prefix, especially since there is not such thing as a hierachy here -- unless you are proposing "appliction/atom.feed+xml" as well, James. (Which you hopefully won't ;-) And while you are at it, why does "application/atom-entry+xml" contain a hyphen? Both "application/atomsvc+xml" and "application/atomcat+xml" do not. We should maintain some consistency here. Speaking of which: What file extension do you recommend for use with "application/atomentry+xml"? ".atomentry"? Just ".entry"? Something else entirely? Regards, Andreas, who still is +1 on a type parameter, but now +0 on a (consistently named!) new media type
