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

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

From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 08:39:57 -0500
To: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: Andy Powell <a.powell@ukoln.ac.uk>, "'www-rdf-comments@w3.org'" <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B8DC4DDD.31216%me@aaronsw.com>
On 2002-04-08 07:43 AM, "Garret Wilson" <garret@globalmentor.com> wrote:

> 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".

Hi Garret. I initially thought this would be useful but soon changed my mind

A) there was apparently a lot of resistance to +xml, and friends in the IETF
thought that out chances of getting +rdf+xml were pretty slim

B) RDF/XML allows for any type of format to be included, so there's no need
for different content-types or content-negotiation -- you can just put all
of your triples in one document

B part 2) subsets of RDF/XML with syntax restrictions (like RSS 1.0) aren't
really RDF and should get their own +xml mime type like rss+xml. Hm, this
isn't the best solution. Maybe a Media Feature might be better for this sort
of thing.

All the best,
      "Aaron Swartz"      |               Swhack Weblog
 <mailto:me@aaronsw.com>  |   <http://blogspace.com/swhack/weblog/>
<http://www.aaronsw.com/> |      something different every day
Received on Friday, 12 April 2002 09:40:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:18 UTC