W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-media-types@w3.org > February 2005

RE: Comments on http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xml-media-types-20041102/

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:15:42 -0800
To: "'Jonathan Marsh'" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, public-ws-media-types@w3.org
Cc: "'Jon Ferraiolo'" <jonf@adobe.com>
Message-id: <0ICH000ULKE6OV@mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com>

> Would you have the same objection if, instead of Accept-headers, we
> simply provided a list of expected media types, with no parameters or
> wildcards?  E.g. xmime:expectedMediaType="image/jpeg image/gif
> image/png".  This would address, if I understand it correctly, your
> concern that wildcards lead to incorrect assumptions about the
> capabilities of the parties involved.  Namely, "how can you assert that
> you accept image/mynewimagetype when I haven't even invented it yet?"

I wouldn't have the same objections; as far as the second objection,
the terminology would be a closer match (I think; I'd want to see the
new draft). (Is it conventional to use singular names '...Type' for
attribute names that contain multiple values?)

As far as the first objection, I think by changing
expectedMediaType to actually be an explicit list of media types
without wildcards you would remove some causes for errors.
However, I still can't think of clear use case where
xmime:expectedMediaType would be useful, even if you change it so that
it is accurate.

Larry
-- 
http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Friday, 25 February 2005 21:29:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Friday, 25 February 2005 21:29:23 GMT