- From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:34:19 -0000
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: public-sw-meaning@w3.org
Hiya Mark,
> Hey Stuart,
>
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 04:59:35PM -0000, Williams, Stuart wrote:
> > Hello Mark,
> >
> > > Fair enough. What I meant to say was that from a message sender
> > > POV, describing their RDF/XML document as text/plain is one way to
> > > avoid communicating the graph. If any recipient does extract the
> > > graph, then that's "sniffing", and "bad" per the TAG finding on
> > > authoritative metadata[1].
> >
> > Hmmm... that's not quite what the finding says... last para section
> > 3.2 [2]
> >
> > "The Internet media type asserts "this is X", not "process this as
follows."
> > Representation metadata does not constrain the receiving agent to
> > process the representation data in one particular way."
> >
> > "this is X" meaning this is an instance of media-type X.
>
> Sorry, I misspoke.
No problem.
> Extracting the graph isn't the bad part. What's bad is
> believing that the recipient was trying to communicate the graph.
^^^^^^^^sender?
What (I think) would be bad would be assuming/believing that the sender
meant to send with media-type application/rdf+xml.
> Mark.
Stuart
--
Received on Thursday, 25 March 2004 12:35:25 UTC