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

Re: Feedback on Internet Media Types and the Web

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 19:36:41 -0800
To: "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>
CC: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3aa9e447-ad57-476d-a30c-e9ee4b232bb7@blur>
I don't know what kind of" groundwork" you want laid or why it would make sense. +xml got defined, for better or worse, without prior" groundwork".  Defining policies in general doesn't seem hefpful. What do you think using+ son in a mime type SHOULD mean, and can you get anyone to agree with you?

Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless


-----Original message-----
From: "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Cc: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Sent: Tue, Feb 8, 2011 03:24:32 GMT+00:00
Subject: Re: Feedback on Internet Media Types and the Web

Larry Masinter wrote:
>
> For "+json" to be useful for anything, it has to mean something that
> everyone agrees to it meaning... and the only way we have of getting
> that agreement is to publish a document and put it through a
> consensus process (notwithstanding those who prefer the" willful
> violation" path).
>

Sure.  But first, the groundwork for such an effort must be laid, such
that it applies to +anything.  I'm talking about defining extensions in
the registry, not +json per se.

What's the counter-argument here, in favor of leaving extensions
undefined?

-Eric
Received on Tuesday, 8 February 2011 03:36:59 GMT

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