[tei-council] [TEI-L] SV: TEI MIME type (fwd)

[James Cummings]

David Sewell wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Laurent Romary wrote:
> 
>> I was somehow waiting for some kind of a clear voicing. But it seems there is
>> a silent concensus and I would give you my green light to pursue on this with
>> SIgfrid in the name of the council.
> 
> James, you did voice some objections--did you intend them to be strong
> enough to halt the process, or no?


I guess my devil's advocate objections could be summarised as:

1) I've not been convinced that it is really useful to us either 
on a marketing perspective or on an application-building 
perspective, but I'm still willing to be convinced (the examples 
so far haven't done it).  What would an application developer use 
it for that there aren't better methods in existence already? 
(And is then a MIME type really the answer?)
2) Theoretically XML is only the current vocabulary of what the 
TEI uses...but that is only pendantry
3) If I say my document is application/tei+xml I haven't 
communicated much information (is it P4, P5, P72?)
4) It seems to claim a document is 'TEI' but says nothing about 
Conformance/Conformable/Non-Conformant or which schema.
5) If the TEI does this, then its main use (it seems to me) is in 
HTTP Accept headers, which can take arbitrary parameters, as such 
it might be useful to suggest recommended naming formats/values 
for those parameters.

I don't think any of those are a deal-breaker by themselves, just 
things I think the Council should be aware of in its decision.

-James