OK... so this was a bad example but I assume you would have extrapolated.IE what if I said that the content type was text/xml and text/html??? That might confuse a lot of applications.It would? Wouldn't that just mean it was XHTML?
I did, but didn't you see my point. Sure, in 1997 something being HTML and XML at the same time might not have made much sense, but preventing it would have caused problems for us later on.
what if I said that it was text/xml text/html image/gif image/jpg image/png,etc, etc, etc.
My position is that the language should be as expressive as possible, even so expressive that people can say seemingly stupid things. It is not the job of XML to prevent folks from writing lies. Similarly, a schema is not appropriate for preventing people from using content types in odd ways. That job lies for layers above, watching for inconsistency. Saying silly things does not mean the document is invalid, it means the document is inconsistent. Please don't confuse these layers.
Documents will basically have one main mimeType and one main contentType whichis what my proposal tries to address.
Really? I think the world is far more complex than that.
--
"Aaron Swartz" | Blogspace
<mailto:me@aaronsw.com> | <http://blogspace.com/about/>
<http://www.aaronsw.com/> | weaving the two-way web