W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2011

Re: ACTION-472: New Mime-web-info draft

From: Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 11:51:46 -0700
To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Cc: nathan@webr3.org, ashok.malhotra@oracle.com, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20110201115146.ec835a51.eric@bisonsystems.net>
Yves Lafon wrote:
> 
> The current fallback is sniffing, not another header.
>

Yes, currently, but implementing an alternative to media types (not
that I'm in favor of it) leads to a new header unless the meaning of
Content-Type is universally changed.

>
> Adding a new header won't solve the issues outlined by Larry's
> document.
>

No, it won't, and if anyone hasn't figured it out yet, I think URIs are
a horrible idea as an alternative to a registry, and off-topic here.
The topic here is fixing the registry, not replacing it, so any talk
about how to replace media types with URIs belongs elsewhere, was
really my point -- not to begin a debate about sniffing.

>
> That said, minting URIs to query a registry might be helpful.
> 

I'm responding to the undying meme of using URIs in Content-Type; the
folks interested in that are against the registry concept.  What's
their way forward?  My answer is, not changing Content-Type to accept
URIs in addition to tokens, but a new header to check before falling
back to sniffing.  This has nothing to do with sniffing.

-Eric
Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2011 18:52:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:30 GMT