- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 23:04:49 -0800
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
[ distribution trimmed ] On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 04:52:34PM -0800, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen 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 > > - 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. Where does 3023 propose such a mapping? Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA USA)
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2001 02:04:53 UTC