W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2004

RE: Proposal for an HTTP ERR method

From: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:58:26 -0700
Message-ID: <830178CE7378FC40BC6F1DDADCFDD1D102D79B2A@RED-MSG-31.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Alex Rousskov" <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, "Henry Story" <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Atom Syntax" <atom-syntax@imc.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-atom-syntax@mail.imc.org 
> [mailto:owner-atom-syntax@mail.imc.org] On Behalf Of Alex Rousskov
> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 12:54 PM
> To: Henry Story
> Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Atom Syntax
> Subject: Re: Proposal for an HTTP ERR method
> 
> Atom WG cannot solve the problem in the middle of the above 
> chain. You can recommend that atom+xml resources do not use 
> .xml extension if possible; you may recommend .atom extension 
> where applicable. 

How does recommending a file extension actually solve the problem?
Specifically how does it solve the problem any better than just
recommending a MIME type? 

Basically I agree with Mark, recommending a file extension makes things
worse not better. But I'd be interested in any counterarguments that
prove this statement wrong.

--
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM 
It takes about a week of treatment to cure a cold. Without treatment, it
takes seven days.        

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.  
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:58:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:31 GMT