W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > May 2006

Re: [metadataInURI-31] New editors draft for Metadata In URIs Finding

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 21:38:10 -0400
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com>, www-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF648CE791.C6FD9830-ON85257170.00083DF7-85257170.0009131A@lotus.com>

Thanks for catching that.  My first draft had a story about someone 
publishing a JPEG and changing it to a GIF, getting stuck with the old 
URI, and having the wrong renderer called.  I decided that was too bizarre 
and switched to the "buggy XML" example.  I missed a couple of references 
to "image"s that were left from the original.  Both are now fixed in 
place, I.e. I didn't allocate a new dated URI, but all current copies (XML 
and HTML) are updated in CVS.  Thanks again.

Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142

Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
05/11/06 06:18 PM
        To:     noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
        cc:     www-archive@w3.org, Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com>
        Subject:        Re: [metadataInURI-31] New editors draft for 
Metadata In URIs        Finding

-cc www-tag (prolly editorial, not worth lots of attention),
+cc www-archive (feel free to cite/forward)

On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 18:02 -0400, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/metaDataInURI-31

"A correctly written browser would have shown the faulty XML as text, or
might conceivably have shown a warning about the apparent mismatch
between the type inferred from the URI and the returned Content-Type of
the image."

image? typo? And I don't see any possible mismatch. Copy-and-paste-o?

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 16 May 2006 01:38:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:32:52 UTC