Subject: [core] Closing on the application/foo+exi discussion

From: Robert Cragie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 15:59:47 +0100

I have read through the many e-mails on the topic and it didn't look 
like we had closure on this.

I don't see what is wrong with having an 'application/foo+exi' media 
type. There are already precedents for using this type of syntax. All it 
means is that the schemaId in the EXI options has specific meaning in 
the 'foo' space and can be used to select a schema for schema-informed 
EXI, as stated in Zach's draft. The alternative of using media type 
'application/xml' and content coding 'exi', or media type 
'application/exi' (equivalent IMHO) means that (assuming no a priori 
knowledge) schemaId, if present, must be unambiguous, and this basically 
means a URI. This is given as an example in the EXI specification but is 
not mandated. If schemaId is not present, it should mean what it says in 
the EXI specification, i.e. schema-less encoding.

Often in constrained environment, originator and recipient may have 
schema knowledge a priori and could choose to elide information 
regarding media type and content coding and, in the case of EXI, EXI 
options.

Robert