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

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

From: Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 13:53:58 -0700
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20110131135358.338b1690.eric@bisonsystems.net>
Nathan wrote:
> 
> Aye, and I guess classing some URIs as "media types" based on the 
> first x chars of the lexical form of the URI would not be a good idea 
> (Opacity and all).
> 

It's a fine debate to have on rest-discuss, where we can talk about the
various philosophies of how self-descriptive messaging might function,
without limiting ourselves to the constraints imposed by HTTP.  The
HTTP WG would be the right forum to suggest, in the absence of a
Content-Type header, falling back to some other header which allows
URIs as tokens -- without having anything to do with media types.  Here,
though, we should treat decisions like the registry being targeted at
humans or not being URI-extensible (or existing at all), as having
already been made, IMO.

-Eric
Received on Monday, 31 January 2011 20:54:40 GMT

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