- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
- Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 18:08:13 +0100
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 09:40 AM 5/3/01 +0100, Brian McBride wrote: >Reading the original mail mesage that raised the issue, the reason why an RDF >mime type is thought to be required is to support content >negotiation. Do you >believe that this is the only motivation, or are there others that we should >capture? The current characterization of the issue in the IL document isn't >very clear. Would you be able to write some words describing the problem that >could be included there? Speculating... it might also be that a MIME type for RDF needs to be stated so that fragment identifiers can be interpreted (though just specifying application/xml would be enought for that purpose). #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 12:00:47 UTC