- 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