- 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