- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
- Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 18:22:55 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 05:07 AM 5/3/01 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
>In those cases, one option is to use application/xml or
>application/octet-stream or whatever. Aaron, I suggest
>adding something to that effect in the spec. i.e.
>"use of this media type means you're asserting it. If
>you don't mean to assert it, use some other applicable
>media type such as application/xml or application/octet-stream."
>or something like that. Also note that they can
>quote/reify it...
Interesting idea, but...
I'm not absolutely sure about this, but I think this goes against the
spirit of the MIME spec. (I.e. using the MIME type to actually modify the
semantics of the content; I know this happens in practice to some extent,
but my understanding of the MIME content-type design was that it is
intended to be used at the level of choosing a suitable processor for the
content, and that the MIME type information would not necessarily be passed
to the receiving application.) If you want to pursue this, I could ping
one of the MIME authors and get a view on this.
[Later]
I just realized that this "MIME-dependent semantics" is already with
us... in the fragment identifier interpretation, so I guess this isn't
really an issue. I'll think about it.
#g
------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne Baltimore Technologies
Strategic Research Content Security Group
<Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com> <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<http://www.baltimore.com>
------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 7 May 2001 11:59:58 UTC