On 24/09/2009, at 7:37 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > It would certainly be an improvement, though I'm still unconvinced > that we > want different definitions for the same link type for different MIME > types. Difference conformance classes, sure, but that's another issue. Yes, that's the tricky part; there would be a tendency to define different meanings for different mime types, no matter how clearly it's stated that the additional information was restricted to the interpretation/implementation of the relations. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/Received on Sunday, 27 September 2009 00:19:49 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:39 GMT