W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2002

Re: Fwd: Three bits on MediaTypes and IANA

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 12:34:11 -0500
Message-Id: <200201151734.MAA01545@tux.w3.org>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Tuesday 15 January 2002 01:29, Mark Baker wrote:
> Hmm, odd, it seems some types get their own URI and others don't.
> For example, RTF gets one;
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/rtf
> A cursory glance of this directory suggests that any media type
> registered through an RFC, doesn't get its own media type.
> How's that for a disincentive?! 8-)

Yes, it seems that the link for a specific sub-type points to an email 
request, but if it is in an RFC the link isn't provided.

> I'm all for more HTTP URIs, though I don't know that Eastlake's encoding
> (or any standardized one) is required.  

When you're encoding characters in a URI you sometimes might have to do 
some escaping and such.

> The relationship between;
>   http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/plain
> and
>   http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/plain?charset="foo"
> (or whatever URI structure IANA decides to use)
> should be made explicit through linking.

What do you mean through linking?


Joseph Reagle Jr.                 http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/Signature/
W3C XML Encryption Chair          http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2002 12:34:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:29 UTC