- From: Zoltan Kis via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 06:57:53 +0000
- To: public-web-nfc@w3.org
@sicking > Though mimetypes are generally a pretty crappy way of exposing types. For exactly this reason. Lots of stuff doesn't have a mimetype. And lots of things have several different mimetypes. Fully agree. And it would be pity to complicate the API because of insufficient coverage of MIME types. > From a security point of view I think we can expose the low-level information once we know that a tag has opted in to being "secure to expose to the web". At least for reading. Yes. And tags express that by being a "web-nfc" tag (contain the special record/ writing scope). We will reiterate then what low-level information is worth exposing. @annevk > If you really wanted it badly feel free to squat "text/url" and I'll add it to the URL Standard and deal with the IETF noise. That would be one good solution, IMO. So the value of ```type``` would be a MIME type, plus "text/url" which may become a MIME type later. Good enough for me. > Using kind and making it a couple special values or a MIME type seems the least problematic to all involved. Did you mean using one property like above, but instead of ```type``` let's call it ```kind``` and let it have MIME types plus a couple of special values like "url" (or even "text/url" FWIW)? Or did you mean the additional property ```kind``` along with ```type``` which is meant to be a standard MIME type? -- GitHub Notif of comment by zolkis See https://github.com/w3c/web-nfc/issues/26#issuecomment-130558515
Received on Thursday, 13 August 2015 06:57:54 UTC