- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 07:52:08 +0200
- To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com>, "'Rob Lanphier'" <robla@real.com>
- Cc: uri@w3.org, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, Dan Zigmond <djz@corp.webtv.net>, Rich Petke <rpetke@wcom.net>
--On tirsdag, september 25, 2001 23:09:49 -0400 Al Gilman
<asgilman@iamdigex.net> wrote:
> In the XML Accessibility Guidelines, we ask novel dialects not only to
> derive their structure and properties as specializations of widely used
> forebears, but
> also to give analogies where possible to the most-similar well-known media
> types and/or their properties.
being the heretic, as usual....if you want something that names a media
type, why not use the standard syntax for naming media types, rather than
shoehorning it into an URI space?
given that this seems a lost cause....all other things being equal, I would
much prefer a syntactic transformation of the type string into an URI to an
unspecialized URI that has to be resolved in order to be useful; the recent
events when Netscape removed the referent target of the RDF 0.9
specification should be proof enough that URIs used for identification have
to be useful without depending on resolution mechanisms.
roy: the worst thing with relative URIs is that at any time, there is only
one base. If you have stuff from 2 naming trees at the same time, you're in
trouble.
Harald
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2001 01:51:37 UTC