Mark Baker wrote:

>> Is it the case then that every time someone creates a new namespace
>> they have to create a new MIME type to go with it?!
> 
> Not necessarily a new namespace, but every new language should have a
> new media type, yes.
> 
Which definition of language Mark?

> I gave a presentation to the W3C CDF WG a while back that might help
> shed some light on the subject;
> 
> http://www.markbaker.ca/Talks/2004-media-types-and-compdocs/slide1-0.html

 From which
Many assume that applications will dispatch on the root namespace
But implementations don't, in general, do this ... ok, newer ones do, 
mostly. Older ones don't though.

and
Such a document might be handled....
and
Obviously there's some wriggle room for interpretation....

I like the arguments put forward, but you seem to accept it's all
ifs and buts and maybes as of today?
Content-Type: application/compound+xml (??)
<html:body cdf:type="image/svg+xml">
   <svg:svg ... />

Seems quite workable and extensible (given your security caveats).


Is it a TAG issue? They don't seem to have done much other than say 
register?
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0129-mime

Nothing about applications or dispatching.
Suggests it's one of those that nicely falls in the cracks?



regards

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk