W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > October 2013

Re: ISSUE-156: Media type parameter for turtle

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 08:50:32 -0400
To: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
Cc: RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20131015125031.GC10886@w3.org>
* Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> [2013-10-09 18:10+0100]
> On 09/10/13 16:22, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> >ISSUE-156: Media type parameter for turtle
> >
> >http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/156
> >
> >Raised by:
> >On product:
> We should not be changing anything that alters the MIME type
> registration nor anything that means deployed code should be
> chnaged.
> 1/ The registration is already done and people have been using it.
> 2/ Changing the behaviour is a new LC and we do not have the time.

My action was to verify that we'd have to re-issue a LC. This is
indeed the case, though Philippe Le Hegaret pointed out that we do
technically have time since it appears we could easily skip a second

The proposal would be to add an optional version=1.1 media type
parameter, along with the text "The 'version' parameter identifies a
version of the Turtle language. The 2013 Turtle specification (this
document) is identified as version '1.1'. Version 1.1 is
backwards-compatible with the 2011 W3C Team Submission."

That said, the rigorous case for versioning is probably not as strong
as the human-engineering case for not versioning.

prominent successes without versioning:

  SPARQL 1.1 does not have a media type to discriminate it from 1.0.

  CSS has several versions, all of which use the same media type.

less successful efforts with versioning:

  XML1.1 followed the path of rigorous versioning and got so little
  adoption that most of its grammar extensions were back-ported into
  1.0 fifth edition.

  HTML DOCTYPEs have version numbers which were never reflected in
  media types or, apparently, in different behaviors in browsers.

After all of this, I think we will get the best adoption by simply
ignoring the problem (much as that frustrates me).

office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +

Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2013 12:51:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:33 UTC