- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 13:53:27 +0100
- To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, "'Dan Connolly'" <connolly@w3.org>, "'Eric Hellman'" <eric@openly.com>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
Yes, this is a key difference between the idea of using the urn:ietf:params form (which is awkward to support the additional parameters) and Eastlake's cturi: proposal, which did (IIRC) allow for all the extra forms of "content-type string" #g -- At 15:03 10/10/03 -0700, Larry Masinter wrote: >One caution: many people think they want a URI to talk about >a "media type" (like 'text/html') when, on examination, their >application actually needs to know a "content-type string" >(like 'text/html;charset=iso-8859-1'). > >On examination, it seems that there are many cases where >specifications confuse the two concepts and quite a number >more that need the latter rather than the former. > >While it's easy to imagine constructing "http://iana.org" >URIs whose resources bear some descriptive relationship >to the former, it's harder to figure out how to encode >the latter. Thus, the motivation for the Eastlake draft. > > >Larry ------------ Graham Klyne GK@NineByNine.org
Received on Saturday, 11 October 2003 09:12:13 UTC