- From: Doug Schepers via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 19:38:26 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
In 1996, when that was written, the Web didn't have many features that it has today. Today, we have webapps and the FileReader API. W3C Recommendations regularly include file extensions, such as *.svg: http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/intro.html#MIMEType HTML5 defines an algorithm that includes the concept of file extensions, in 4.8.3 "Downloading resources": http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/links.html#concept-extension IANA includes a file extensions as part of the registry for a MIME type: https://www.iana.org/form/media-types IETF defines file name extensions in RFC6838: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6838#section-4.12 File extensions are not universal, but it is a pragmatic heuristic for many resources on the web, if there's no other way to get the MIME type. It's pedantic to pretend otherwise. But my real concern is interoperability, and I'm skeptical we can get there on this feature for v1. I'd be fine with having them as a `MAY`; I could live with having them as a `SHOULD`. I'd be unhappy having them as a `MUST`. In any case, it ultimately comes down to test suites and implementation reports. If we define how `dctypes` and `format` should be used, and we have multiple interoperable implementations, then that's good enough for me. -- GitHub Notif of comment by shepazu See https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/67#issuecomment-135531962
Received on Thursday, 27 August 2015 19:38:28 UTC