- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 16:52:34 -0800
- To: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no>, "Eastlake III Donald-LDE008" <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com>, "Rob Lanphier" <robla@real.com>
- Cc: <uri@w3.org>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, "Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org>, "Dan Zigmond" <djz@microsoft.com>, "Rich Petke" <rpetke@wcom.net>
>One reason you need a mapping between Contentxt-Types and >URIs is that one must be able to introduce new non-standard >context types with all the benefit of URI machinery > >- Anyone can make a new one >- Choice of schemes with different properties of identity, >dereference, etc >- Ability to talk about them for example wiht RDF and all >other languages which use URIs. I agree, but this seems very different from the mapping proposed by RFC 3023 [1] which defines a mapping from a (namespace) URI into a content type based on an IANA registration and a new "+xml" syntax convention for XML based content type names. RFC 3023 suggests content types for several W3C defined languages including SVG, RDF, MathML, and XSLT all of which are identified by namespace URIs. This seems to go in the direct opposite direction by forcing central registration of names that were designed not to be. Is this the direction we want to go? Henrik Frystyk Nielsen mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com [1] http://rfc.net/rfc3023.html
Received on Monday, 29 October 2001 20:04:46 UTC