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

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

On 15/11/2011, at 10:47 PM, Zach Shelby wrote:

> 
> On Nov 16, 2011, at 12:13 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
>>> Besides, the current media type for EXI is application/exi. Thus it would make perfect sense to have +exi entries. Furthermore, EXI is totally different than gzip, which is a generic encoding that can be applied to anything. EXI can be applied only to XML objects, and in particular EXI is often used in a schema mode where it is only applicable to a single schema. Thus the form application/schema+exi makes even more sense, as that EXI format is actually specific to that particular schema and the media type tells you everything that is needed to decode the representation. 
>> 
>> These arguments were part of the discussion during EXI, and W3C decided to use a content-coding.
> 
> The W3C standard defines application/exi here 
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-exi-20091208/#mediaTypeRegistration


Yes, and they register the content coding right above that. 

Just because they registered a generic media type, it doesn't follow that automatically creating +exi media types for everything is a good idea.

--
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/