W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > December 2006

[whatwg] PaceEntryMediatype

From: Ernest Prabhakar <prabhaka@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 11:35:12 -0800
Message-ID: <76AFE365-E56F-4C27-90F7-EB619B2F2D80@apple.com>
Hi James,

On Dec 1, 2006, at 11:25 AM, James M Snell wrote:
> You're right that the differentiation in the content-type is of less
> importance but without it there's no way for me to unambiguously
> indicate that a resource has both an Atom Feed representation and an
> Atom Entry representation.  The best I could do is say "This things  
> has
> two Atom representations".  Keep in mind that I want to be able to
> differentiate the types of alternate representations available without
> having to look at any of the other rel keywords.

I understand that this is *what* you want, but I'm still unclear "why."

 From where I sit, Kyle's argument makes sense: keep the syntax in  
content-type, and the semantics in rel-type.  This seems both simpler  
and more consistent with how the web works today. No?  Or is there  
some overriding reason for ignoring rel-type?

-- Ernie P.
Received on Friday, 1 December 2006 11:35:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:30 UTC