> There's nothing wrong with there being a well-known location for IANA > URLs. However, many mechanisms defined by the W3C rely on URIs as a means > of expressing registry information (SMIL systemComponent is the one I'm > primarily interested in, but I understand CC/PP has a similar concern). In > order to have interoperability between implementations, both > implementations need to implement the *same* scheme. Redirects are *not* > acceptable. Wouldn't that depend on the type of redirect? A 301 means a firm "The requested resource has been assigned a new permanent URI [...]", whereas a 302 means a softer "The requested resource resides temporarily under a different URI." I suggest that a 301 redirect should mean exactly what you suggest redirects should not mean. Anyhow, I'm all for moving media type URLs under iana.org. If this is done soon, I think we can forgo needing redirects to be set up, as I'm not aware of any deployed software that uses the ISI URLs. MBReceived on Tuesday, 25 September 2001 13:55:37 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:39 UTC