- From: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:26:50 +0000
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Cc: public-cwm-talk@w3.org
Hmmm... adding to unregistered MIME types in-the-wild? If this were a URI scheme, I think some folks here would complain. I suggest submitting a MIME-type registration if going this way. Also, since N3 isn't intended to be a widespread interchange format (is it?), wouldn't application/vnd.w3.n3 be better? By the way, from my recollection of the discussions, the adoption of <foo>+xml for MIME types was a one-off for XML, recognizing XML's preeminent role as a meta-format for defining new content types. I don't think n3 can make any such claim, so the suggestive use of rdf+n3 would be misleading in that respect. I suggest sticking to n3. #g -- At 15:32 16/01/05 -0500, Dan Brickley wrote: >Hi. Nice to see >http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-rdf-sparql-protocol-20050114 >out and about :) > >Just one brief and boring comment now while I remember: > >"text/n3" should probably be "application/rdf+n3" >or "application/n3". Googling for these, it seems both >are in various codebases. Perhaps having a conneg-happy >protocol spec out there will motivate some concensus >(and a media type registration) in the N3 scene? CC:'ing timbl... >(text/n3 is worse due to UTF-8 vs ASCII issues). Ah, >Tim says "text/rdf+n3" is also in use. Hmm. I'm going to hit >"send" on this mail anyways, to flag the issue! > >cheers, > >Dan > >ps. typos in 2.2: >"Accept-Chareset" -> "Accept-Charset" > > "prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/%gt; ." > ... s/%gt/>/ I think >also suggest "Host: my.example" > -> "Host: my.example.org" >although http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2606.txt >allows .example as a fictional TLD ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2005 11:31:29 UTC