4 Sep
2010
4 Sep
'10
9:11 p.m.
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
IHMO: if this was a "custom", binary media type, then yes, you could define whatever you want. Although I still don't think it would be a good idea.
However, this is a +xml type, and it needs to be compatible with what RFC 3023 says.
Then I would favor requiring that XML based content that is compressed carry the type and extension of the container and let the opener-of-the-container determine how to process the contents, rather than promote the proliferation of multiple types and extensions for what is ultimately the same content.