Subject: Re: Atom Entry docs

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:36:45 +0100

Martin Duerst wrote:
> James M Snell wrote:
>> I think atom.entry and atom-entry are equally ugly; atom.entry would,
>> however, appear to be more consistent with typical mime conventions.
> 
> The dot is used for prefixes like vnd. (vendor) and so on.
> In the case of atom entries, atom-entry is more in line with
> the convention in other types.

Right. Please drop the (dot-separated) prefix, especially since there is not such thing as a hierachy here -- unless you are proposing "appliction/atom.feed+xml" as well, James. (Which you hopefully won't ;-)

And while you are at it, why does "application/atom-entry+xml" contain a hyphen? Both "application/atomsvc+xml" and "application/atomcat+xml" do not. We should maintain some consistency here.

Speaking of which: What file extension do you recommend for use with "application/atomentry+xml"? ".atomentry"? Just ".entry"? Something else entirely?

Regards,

Andreas,
who still is +1 on a type parameter, but now +0 on a (consistently named!) new media type