"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> writes: > On Oct 5, 2010, at 12:53 PM, Noah Mendelsohn wrote: > >> Roy Fielding writes: >> >>> Where ambiguity might be present, bare name fragments always refer >>> to the semantics defined by the specific media type. >> >> My impression is that Norm's preference is: >> >> Where ambiguity might be present, bare name fragments always refer >> to the semantics defined for generic processing per 3023bis; thus >> the semantics for each specific media type SHOULD be the same as >> the generic, at least insofar as the syntax overlaps. > > I think that would contradict his category (1), but I see your point. Category (1) in my previous message doesn't come into play because it is for a media type that's not a +xml media type. I concede that I've got no clue what to do in that case if I don't recognize the media type. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh Lead Engineer MarkLogic Corporation www.marklogic.comReceived on Wednesday, 6 October 2010 20:27:47 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:28 GMT