W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > April to June 2002

Re: RDF Issue: mime-types-for-rdf-docs

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 11:11:11 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020409110618.03d2eec0@joy.songbird.com>
To: "Garret Wilson" <garret@globalmentor.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
At 08:43 AM 4/8/02 -0400, Garret Wilson wrote:
>Brian,
>
>The adoption of the "application/rdf+xml" MIME type makes sense for general
>RDF, just as "text/xml" makes sense for general XML.
>
>There have been later recommendations that "+xml" be appended to MIME types
>for specific applications of XML (as evident in the new RDF MIME type above
>when RDF is serialized as XML). Has there been any thought of making a
>similar recommendation ("application/...+rdf+xml") for specific
>applications of RDF? For instance, this would
>allow "application/pics+rdf+xml", "application/xpackage+rdf+xml",
>and "application/annotea+rdf+xml".

Garret,

I have yet to be convinced that this would be a Good Thing.

But, thinking aloud so to speak, one situation where I can conceive this 
approach *might* be useful is if specific applications (such as your 
XPackage work?) are defined to use a subset of the RDF/XML syntax.  Thus, 
programs that process application/rdf+xml MUST handle the full gamut of RDF 
syntax.  But other MIME types of the form you suggest might be used for 
restricted syntaxex that are designed to be processable using ordinary XML 
tools or generic RDF processors?

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Tuesday, 9 April 2002 08:39:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:30 GMT