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

Re: Media types

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 21:17:44 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200201180217.VAA22084@markbaker.ca>
To: fielding@ebuilt.com (Roy T. Fielding)
Cc: simonstl@simonstl.com (Simon St.Laurent), www-tag@w3.org, ietf-xml-mime@imc.org
> Let's say you have two resources that both resolve to the same content.
>    GET one and the response is always sent as image/cvg+xml.
>    GET two and the response is always sent as application/xml.
> Those are separate semantics, and thus separate resources.  It doesn't
> prevent the UA from taking the content and choosing to manipulate it
> in different ways, but it does define the semantics from the perspective
> of the person who created the two separate URI used to access those
> two resources containing the same content.

I understand that view.  It's equivalent to sending HTML as text/plain
and not expecting that it be displayed as HTML.  It's a reasonable
argument, primarily because the specification of */xml doesn't say what
to expect, plus not all XML uses namespaces.  Assuming no dispatch would
at least provide some consistentcy.

So let's say we define a new media type for which this dispatching
behaviour is required.  Then publishers describing their content with
that type would expect that the first processor (other than the one
for the media type) to see the content would be, in your example, an SVG
processor.

How's that sound?

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2002 21:16:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:04 GMT