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

Re: Feedback on Internet Media Types and the Web

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:53:59 +0100
Message-ID: <4D53DFE7.8000200@gmx.de>
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
CC: "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On 08.02.2011 13:04, Chris Lilley wrote:
> 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).
> ...

My understanding is that we only need to define a notation if there's a 
common way to handle those media types. I can see that for +xml and 
+json, but I am not so sure about +zip...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 10 February 2011 12:54:40 GMT

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