Re: URIs for media types

Yes, this is a key difference between the idea of using the urn:ietf:params 
form (which is awkward to support the additional parameters) and Eastlake's 
cturi: proposal, which did (IIRC) allow for all the extra forms of 
"content-type string"

#g
--

At 15:03 10/10/03 -0700, Larry Masinter wrote:

>One caution: many people think they want a URI to talk about
>a "media type" (like 'text/html') when, on examination, their
>application actually needs to know a "content-type string"
>(like 'text/html;charset=iso-8859-1').
>
>On examination, it seems that there are many cases where
>specifications confuse the two concepts and quite a number
>more that need the latter rather than the former.
>
>While it's easy to imagine constructing "http://iana.org"
>URIs whose resources bear some descriptive relationship
>to the former, it's harder to figure out how to encode
>the latter. Thus, the motivation for the Eastlake draft.
>
>
>Larry

------------
Graham Klyne
GK@NineByNine.org