- From: Rob Lanphier <robla@real.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 02:12:17 -0700
- To: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, "Larry Masinter" <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, <harald.alvestrand@maxware.no>, "Dan Zigmond" <djz@corp.webtv.net>, "Rich Petke" <rpetke@wcom.net>
- Cc: <uri@w3.org>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
At 02:15 PM 9/24/2001 -0400, Tim Berners-Lee wrote: >Content-Types should be defined by URIs, as are XML Namespaces. These then >leverage the existing URI schemes to anchor thier meanings in the web. >This allows anyone to make a local private Content-Type or namespace for >their own use. This does NOT apply to URI schemes. The process has to be >rooted somewhere, and that root is the URI spec and the *small* set >of URI schemes. I'm confused by this statement. In your estimation, is the Eastlake proposal to solve this problem a Good Thing, a Bad Thing, or just a Thing. For your reference: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eastlake-cturi-02.txt I'm assuming you see this as a Bad Thing, at which point, I anxiously await an alternate proposal. Thanks Rob
Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2001 05:10:28 UTC