W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > January 2009

ISSUE-3 (mhausenblas): Does our MF URI syntax imlpy that we need to update MIME Type registrations?

From: Media Fragments Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 05:28:26 -0500 (EST)
To: public-media-fragment@w3.org
Message-Id: <20090128102826.49E274DD65@crusher.w3.org>

ISSUE-3 (mhausenblas): Does our MF URI syntax imlpy that we need to update MIME Type registrations? 

http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/issues/3

Raised by: Michael Hausenblas
On product: 

In [1] Michael argued that whenever we talk about URI semantics, we need to start with RFC3986 section 3.5: 

'The semantics of a fragment identifier are defined by the set of
representations that might result from a retrieval action on the primary
resource. The fragment's format and resolution is therefore dependent on the
media type [RFC2046] of a potentially retrieved representation, even
though such a retrieval is only performed if the URI is dereferenced. If
no such representation exists, then the semantics of the fragment are
considered unknown and are effectively unconstrained. Fragment identifier
semantics are independent of the URI scheme and thus cannot be
redefined by scheme specifications.'

Further, from RFC2046 we learn that the MIME Type Registrations (taking a JPG still image as an example) for JPEG 2000
(ISO/IEC15444) is specified in RFC3745 where no fragments are defined,
hence the general rules from RFC3986 apply.

Do we need to update all registries of targeted media types or are we fine with sticking to the fallback rule from RFC3986 ('If no such representation exists, then the semantics of the fragment are considered unknown and are effectively unconstrained.' 

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Jan/0043.html
Received on Thursday, 29 January 2009 10:41:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:32 GMT