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

Re: Feedback on Internet Media Types and the Web

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 13:04:05 +0100
Message-ID: <1295007025.20110208130405@w3.org>
To: "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>
CC: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Tuesday, February 8, 2011, 6:00:14 AM, Eric wrote:

EJB> Larry Masinter wrote:
>> +xml got defined, for better or worse, without prior" groundwork".

EJB> As an experiment.  The experiment was a success.  The standard needs to
EJB> be updated to account for this success, so that the registry stays
EJB> current with modern expectations based on that success.  There was no
EJB> need to define +suffix before +xml came along, i.e. no need for prior
EJB> groundwork.  Now that +xml *has* defined +suffix, it's time to adopt
EJB> that definition in general, to lay the groundwork for insisting that
EJB> they be defined uniformly (as opposed to +suffix meaning whatever any
EJB> given media type says it means, in which case what's the point of the
EJB> syntax even existing).

In addition to +json I have seen requests for types that included +zip (EPUB for instance).

I agree with Eric that a bit more needs to be said about suffixes in general and with Larry that something specific needs to be said about +json in particular (and +zip also, in a different document).


-- 
 Chris Lilley   Technical Director, Interaction Domain                 
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
 Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups
Received on Tuesday, 8 February 2011 12:03:17 GMT

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