W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: application/rdf+xml Media Type Registration [DRAFT]

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 23:14:36 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020401230718.00a6d030@joy.songbird.com>
To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 09:28 PM 3/30/02 -0600, Aaron Swartz wrote:
> > Do we want to parameterize this.  " as specified in [5] or the most recent
> > specification that supercedes it."
>
>Good question, I'm not sure what the IETF thinks about that sort of thing.

I'm not sure either, but I think that the implication may be 
implicit.  When an RFC is superseded, a new RFC with a different RFC number 
is issued, but (if it's a full standard) the same STD number.

On balance, I'd say put the extra words in.  I don't think they'll cause 
any problems, and if they do I suppose we can always take them out again.

> > How is versioning handled in mime-types, if at all?
>
>Graham?

Generally, not, I think.  I think one could issue a new registration that 
supersedes a previous one and refers to an updated specification.  There's 
no explicit version in a MIME content-type.  It would be theoretically 
possible to define a version parameter if that was important, but I guess 
it would be viewed with some suspicion.

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Monday, 1 April 2002 17:23:05 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:47:20 EDT