RE: ACTION: elaborate on 4.4

IANA registration is not that hard.  And you can use "x-my-scheme" until you
get there.  I can't see any reason to undermine the internet mime type
registry for identifying an interchange notation.  For example, you could
place the mime types into a namespace owned by IANA and do whatever escaping
that was required so that the result was a valid URI.  The purpose of IANA
is to control the introduction of Internet Names, and I think that we need
to respect this.

-bryan

-----Original Message-----
From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Kendall Clark
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 1:33 PM
To: Seaborne, Andy
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group
Subject: Re: ACTION: elaborate on 4.4



On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 06:24:31PM +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote:

> As do ours.  However, our own local preferecnes are enough on their 
> own to

Presumbaly you left out a "not" here.

> justify this WG getting involved.  Some of the issues are more bound 
> to registering MIME types and the time/work that takes.

I agree re: anyone group. But there seem to be many such groups.

I also agree about the problems with MIME type registration. I haven't
looked to see how many of the other serialization formats have MIME tags or
have registered for them.

Putting URIs into Accept: will probably get us yelled at,  as would a
X-DAWG-Accept, presumably.

> If we can find a way to have an extensible "Accept:"-like scheme that 
> used URIs then that presumably would meet your need for the design 
> goal?

Yes, that would do it, minimally.

Kendall

Received on Friday, 18 June 2004 13:39:56 UTC