- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 23:14:36 +0100
- 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 When an RFC is superseded, a new RFC with a different RFC number is issued, but (if it's a full standard) the same STD number.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 UTC