- From: Wilde, Erik <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 12:12:22 -0400
- To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
- CC: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
hello henry. On 2013-06-10 9:04 , "Henry Story" <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote: >I argue strongly against using mediatypes as it is mistaking syntax with >semantics. Simply put: the content in bytes sent from the server to the >client >is known as a representation of the resource ( it has a syntax defined by >its mime type ) repeating this over and over does not make it any more correct. if that were the case, HTML would not exist as a media type (driving the web through its HTML-specific links), and instead we would have text/sgml, because that would be all that was needed in order to parse HTML into some generic metamodel. >Perhaps we could do the HTTP/RDF community a favor to register the >relation >http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type to the shorthand "type" >so that >the above could become >Link: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Container>; rel="type" http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6903#section-6 cheers, dret.
Received on Monday, 10 June 2013 16:13:03 UTC