W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-annotation@w3.org > August 2015

Re: [web-annotation] Dropping type from ... what?

From: Doug Schepers via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 19:38:26 +0000
To: public-annotation@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-135531962-1440704305-sysbot+gh@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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:39 UTC