- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:12:33 +0100
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, 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@corp.webtv.net>, Rich Petke <rpetke@wcom.net>
--On mandag, oktober 29, 2001 18:57:33 -0500 Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org> wrote: > 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 In general, I regard this as a disadvantage, not an advantage. A plethora of content-types produces labelled non-interoperability, not communication. > - Choice of schemes with different properties of identity, dereference, > etc Don't see how this relates to content-types. >- Ability to talk about them for example wiht RDF and all other > languages which use URIs. I could see this as an argument. So far, the biggest one.
Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2001 06:12:37 UTC