IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] +exi (was: Re: type name suffixes)

Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> Wed, 16 November 2011 03:06 UTC

Return-Path: <derhoermi@gmx.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0F9311E81E1 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:06:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.437
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.163, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s4pVXAaI-mLN for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:06:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 898F521F8FB9 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:06:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 16 Nov 2011 03:06:37 -0000
Received: from dslb-094-223-211-067.pools.arcor-ip.net (EHLO HIVE) [94.223.211.67] by mail.gmx.net (mp040) with SMTP; 16 Nov 2011 04:06:37 +0100
X-Authenticated: #723575
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18zDQhrgMEzDe08tm7Aob0Gnm88sckRqcQYYSzBsf aFwk6dxhe/PyTJ
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 04:06:42 +0100
Message-ID: <lu96c7hsl37325nn3184ub4vr88qjgja50@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
References: <4EBBB0EE.8050502@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <01O88YVG6MQY00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> <4EBCCE76.2090807@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <01O8AM6GDT5000RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> <4EC0CCAE.5070402@stpeter.im> <01O8EWMK2T8E00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> <4EC2DC42.7010307@stpeter.im> <01O8GE5O3B5K00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D0611DAC31D@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com> <4EC31F1E.6070304@stpeter.im> <8p86c7d6chvadsku6k5dhct20qkl7uk73l@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <4EC326FE.1010809@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <4EC326FE.1010809@stpeter.im>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] +exi (was: Re: type name suffixes)
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 03:06:44 -0000

* Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>So, let's say I have "foo" data that can be represented in either plain
>old XML or as EXI. If I send that "foo" data as plain old XML, the
>"application/foo+xml" media type is right. If I send that "foo" data as
>EXI, the "application/foo+exi" media type seems wrong, and so does the
>"application/exi" media type (just as "application/xml" would not be
>right for the first encoding). Sure, I don't particularly want to
>duplicate all "+xml" entries with "+exi" entries, but I don't think that
>every protocol or community that sends around XML data will also send
>around EXI-encoded data.

The idea is that "EXI" is more like "gzip", so with HTTP you would do

  Content-Type: application/foo+xml
  Content-Encoding: exi

As you would for gzip-compressed content.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

v2.27.6 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status