- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 11:55:45 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, dawg comments <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>
On Jan 31, 2006, at 11:36 AM, Dan Connolly wrote: >> You can register application/prs.kendallclark.notation3 or something >> like that. > > I'm looking into it. > >> If the RDF DAWG wants to use Notation3 in a W3C Technical >> Report and requires a media type for Notation3 for that, it's the >> WG's >> responsibility to do what's necessary so this can be done in >> accordance >> with RFC 4288 and the TAG's finding on internet media types, both of >> which seem quite clear that use of unregistered and experimental >> media >> types is discouraged. > > I'm sympathetic to that argument. I'm not. The whole issue is sterile and absurd: 1. The MIME type in question is in an *informative*, not normative example. It's not normative and we're not *using* the unregistered type. We're showing an example of a protocol interaction where an unregistered type is being used. That difference matters, IMO. 2. I suspect there are W3C sanctioned URIs where the content-type returned is *precisely* this unregistered MIME type. (If not, congrats to the MIT/CSAIL & cwm folks for keeping that strictly segregated, and my apologies for the implication otherwise.) So I'll leave it to others to sort out. I'm not bothered by *illustrative* material in a spec, when there are *real* world uses of the same unregistered MIME type. Cheers, Kendall
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2006 16:55:53 UTC