On 12/14/06, Henri Sivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Dec 13, 2006, at 17:51, Mark Baker wrote:
> But
> given that an alternative exists which shouldn't break those servers,
> why not use it when there's no apparent downside?
The downside is that implementations that (quite reasonably) assume
that application/atom+xml == feed are also reasonable when they
ignore unknown media type parameters.
True, but I think it's quite reasonable to interpret that behaviour as a bug.
Given the options of a new type or a new parameter, I am +1 on the
new type. (Although in general, I don't like the proliferation of
application/*+xml types, because apps need to do root sniffing for
application/xml anyway.)
Let's not go there 8-) See;
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.html#embedded
Mark.
