Re: [media-types] Re: Rethinking Media Types

Tim,

Though they have certainly served us well, the "brutally simple semantics" as you describe them, are proving in a sense inadequate for media-type registrations that have been proposed recently. This is plain for anyone who has been at the mediaman meetings in the last couple of years and have seen the painful discussion on the suffixes draft. Something is gotta give, unless we find another approach (mine is but one possible idea). I am open to suggestions.

BR/Rahul

On Sunday, January 12th, 2025 at 1:32 AM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:

> On Jan 11, 2025 at 10:50:01 AM, Rahul Gupta <cxres@protonmail.com> wrote:
> 

> > What if we could instead specify something like "`Content-Type-Novelle: wt(json(ld(vc+sd)))" with some form of standardized content arithmetic, each string token being an registry reference.`
> 

> 

> Thinking about all the code that web clients would have to write to take advantage of this and currently unconvinced that the upside justifies the effort. Media types are one of the nice things about the Web, and I suspect the brutally simple semantics have generally encouraged good design. -T
> 

> 

Received on Saturday, 11 January 2025 20:44:08 UTC