W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-powderwg@w3.org > December 2008

Re: Request for two new media types submitted

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 11:10:53 +0100
Message-ID: <493509AD.7090309@w3.org>
To: Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>
CC: Public POWDER <public-powderwg@w3.org>
Ah! I must admit I did not know about this additional nicety around
text/...+xml and application/...+xml... Then I withdraw my comment:-)

Thanks Phil


Phil Archer wrote:
> Thanks Ivan, I'll cc this to the public list so it's recorded.
> No, no mistake, we mean text/powder+xml. In answer to the registration
> form's question on Interoperability considerations I wrote:
> "The text top level media type is used in accordance with RFC2046,
> section 3(1) which says that "... software must not be required in order
> to get the general idea of the content." We contend that the structure
> of a POWDER document, whilst not designed first and foremost to be
> human-readable, is simple enough for this requirement to be met.
> Therefore interoperability with systems that only render text is
> supported."
> RFC3023 states "If an XML document -- that is, the unprocessed, source
> XML document -- is readable by casual users, text/xml is preferable to
> application/xml"
> OK so even a simple POWDER document has a load of angle brackets and
> won't mean much to everyone, but we have always maintained the idea that
> the source code should be simple enough that, with just a little
> familiarisation, a non-specialist should be able to edit them. We
> believe we've achieved that with POWDER, but of course, POWDER-S is very
> hard to understand and edit by hand so that's why we've gone for
> application/powder-s+xml.
> Do you agree?
> Phil
> Ivan Herman wrote:
>> Phil,
>> http://www.w3.org/mid/4933E1E8.2050800@philarcher.org seems to register
>> text/powder+xml. Isn't that a mistake? Shouldn't it be
>> application/powder+xml? That is the standard thingy for xml
>> applications... The one for powder-s seems to be all right, so I presume
>> that was a mistake...
>> Ivan
>> Phil Archer wrote:
>>> To whom it may concern,
>>> On behalf of the W3C POWDER Working Group I have have today submitted
>>> two registration requests for Media Types. As cited in those requests,
>>> the key documentation is section 4 of Protocol for Web Description
>>> Resources (POWDER): Description Resources [1]. Although this is formally
>>> published as a working draft, we are close to reaching our Candidate
>>> Recommendation exit criteria and therefore expect to seek transition to
>>> Proposed Recommendation later this month.
>>> The reference numbers returned following the submissions were 208572 and
>>> 208576. These requests complement the separate request to register
>>> 'describedby' as an ATOM relationship type (currently under
>>> consideration).
>>> If I have missed any important detail or of you have any queries, please
>>> contact me, preferably copying in the POWDER WG's public mailing list.
>>> Thank you.
>>> Phil Archer
>>> POWDER WG Chair.
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#assoc


Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2008 10:11:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:06:04 UTC