W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > May 2001

Re: Issue http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#mime-types-for-rdf-docs

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 18:22:55 +0100
Message-Id: <>
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.


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.


Graham Klyne                    Baltimore Technologies
Strategic Research              Content Security Group
<Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>    <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
Received on Monday, 7 May 2001 11:59:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:00 UTC