> 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.netReceived 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