- From: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:58:26 -0700
- To: "Alex Rousskov" <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, "Henry Story" <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Atom Syntax" <atom-syntax@imc.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-atom-syntax@mail.imc.org > [mailto:owner-atom-syntax@mail.imc.org] On Behalf Of Alex Rousskov > Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 12:54 PM > To: Henry Story > Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Atom Syntax > Subject: Re: Proposal for an HTTP ERR method > > Atom WG cannot solve the problem in the middle of the above > chain. You can recommend that atom+xml resources do not use > .xml extension if possible; you may recommend .atom extension > where applicable. How does recommending a file extension actually solve the problem? Specifically how does it solve the problem any better than just recommending a MIME type? Basically I agree with Mark, recommending a file extension makes things worse not better. But I'd be interested in any counterarguments that prove this statement wrong. -- PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM It takes about a week of treatment to cure a cold. Without treatment, it takes seven days. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2004 19:58:34 UTC